Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

EX-SERVICE MEN (CIVIL SERVICE).

Captain FRASER: I beg to present a Petition signed by nearly 2,000 ex-service men who are temporarily employed in a clerical capacity in the Civil Service. "Your petitioners have served the State faithfully and well for a number of years in war and peace, and have thereby got out of touch with the practice of ordinary commercial employment and with opportunities of getting such employment. Your petitioners are subject to notice to leave the service from time to time, and concurrently young persons who have other opportunities of employment are being recruited. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of this House will give them greater security in their employment, better opportunities for promotion, and that this House will wish to be more liberally interpreted the pledges made in this matter by His Majesty's Government."

Oral Answers to Questions — BASLE MISSION TRADING COMPANY.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish, in the form of a White Paper, any representations made by the Swiss Government upon the sequestration of the Basle Mission Trading Company's properties in India and Africa, or if he will communicate them to the House in some other convenient form?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker- Lampson): In view of the fact that the whole question is now under
consideration by His Majesty's Government, I do not think it would be advisable to publish the papers to which the hon. and gallant Member refers.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS.

Mr. PONSONBY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under which of the reservations which accompanied the declaration of the independence of Egypt in 1922 His Majesty's Government claim the right to take steps to nullify the results of probable legislation by the Egyptian Parliament, as stated in the warning Note presented by Lord Lloyd to the Egyptian Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, Sir; the reservation in question is reservation (c)—the protection of foreign interests in Egypt and the protection of minorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — ZINOVIEFF LETTER.

Mr. MACLEAN: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any documents, similar in contents to the Zinovieff letter, were in the possession of His Majesty's Government in 1923; whether any consideration was given them by the Cabinet; whether any communication was made to the Russian Government on the documents; and, if so, whether such correspondence has been, or will be, published?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The other parts do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: Were there no communications placed before the Cabinet in that year—communications of the same character as the Zinovieff letter?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that wide currency has been given to statements by members of his own party in high positions that there were several documents of this sort, and how does he reconcile that with his answer?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is true that there were several very objectionable documents, but not of this character.

Mr. MACLEAN: If there were several objectionable documents—objectionable to the Government in office at that time—will the hon. Gentleman do what he is asked to do in the question, that is, see that these documents are published so that the public can understand them?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: They were published. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Command Paper 1869 of 1923 he will see that they were published.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (BRITISH PRESS REPRESENTATIVES).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements are made by his Department during the sittings of the Council of the League of Nations so that British Press representatives may be equally in possession of facts for publication as are their French and German colleagues?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: A member of the Foreign Office is present at Geneva during sittings of the Council of the League of Nations as Press Officer, and is always accessible to British Press representatives. My right hon. Friend is also in the habit of receiving those correspondents from time to time during the sittings of the Council.

Mr. BROWN: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been called to an article from one of these Press correspondents, published last Monday, which points out that the British correspondents have had to go to French and German sources to get the information that they desired because they could not get it from our own Foreign Office or Minister?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's question was based on a certain article, which I read very carefully. There is no truth in it at all. My right hon. Friend is always prepared to meet the representatives of the British Press in this way.

Oral Answers to Questions — BULGARIA (LOAN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with regard to the League of Nation's proposal to guarantee a £5,000,000 loan to Bulgaria, whether His Majesty's Government has to guarantee
any part of this loan; and whether, before British credit is pledged, he will satisfy himself that the political prisoners in Bulgaria are amnestied and the political rights of the people restored?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The hon. and gallant Member seems to have misunderstood the proposal. There is no question of pledging British credit. As the Bulgarian Government are anxious to raise a foreign Loan under the auspices of the League of Nations, the Financial Committee of the League has for some time past been in communication with the Bulgarian Government with regard to the security they would be prepared to offer, and generally as to the manner in which the loan would be administered and spent. The Financial Committee submitted to the Council of the. League at its recent meeting an agreed scheme on these matters, which the Council has approved. This scheme, which will be eventually published in the League of Nations Journal, does not involve any guarantee either by the League as a whole or by His Majesty's Government in particular.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Who does guarantee this loan, or is it simply on the credit of the Bulgarian Government?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think it is on the credit of the Bulgarian Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Then what has the League of Nations to do with it?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The League was asked to help with advice, and I understand that the administration of the loan will be carried out by League Commissioners at Sofia, who will act as trustees appointed by the League to protect the rights of the bondholders. But there is no guarantee.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can we be certain that, the British Government, through the League of Nations, will give no countenance to this loan without stipulating that there shall be an amnesty for those people who have been in gaol now for so long?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Really, there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between the loan and what, after
all, is a purely internal matter for the Bulgarian Government. As a matter of fact, during the last few years there have been very large amnesties, and I understand that at the present moment the only persons incarcerated on political charges are those charged with homicide and personal violence.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that they still have concentration camps where these people are segregated without trial?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I have already said that during the last few years, ever since the present Bulgarian Government came into power, there have been periodical amnesties.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the present time 800 political prisoners are incarcerated in Bulgaria, and that 3,000 are refugees abroad?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Of these 800, how many are British subjects?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As I have already pointed out, really this is an internal matter for Bulgaria and has nothing whatever to do with the loan.

Mr. MACLEAN: If this is purely an internal matter, why is the League of Nations considering the matter of appointing a trustee to see that ample security is offered to the nations of those subscribing to this loan?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter now.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DOCKYARDS DISCHARGES (PAINTERS).

Mr. VIANT: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that operative painters to the number of 12 have recently been discharged from His Majesty's dockyard at Devonport on the grounds of a, shortage of work and that, notwithstanding this plea, a number of naval ratings were instructed, on 27th February last, to distemper the ceiling and walls and paint the woodwork in D block dining-room at the Devonport dockyard; and will he reconsider this policy of the employment of naval ratings?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY(Lieut.-Colonel Head lam): I am aware of the discharges referred to, and I regret that they were inevitable because no money was available for wages of the men in question. If we had the money we have work for many more men. The particular work to which the hon. Member refers was done in the naval barracks by naval ratings for the benefit of naval ratings. Had naval ratings not have been employed the work would not have been done. The reply to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. VIANT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the discharges that are taking place at Chatham now, and for precisely the same reason, that naval ratings are doing the work hitherto done by building trade operatives?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: That is not the reason for the discharges. I tried to point out in my answer that the reason is that there is not sufficient work going on all the time to enable us to keep on these men. The only reason why we are discharging men is that there is not sufficient work. It may happen that some little piece of work may arise, for which naval ratings can be utilised. That is the only reason why they are being utilised.

Mr. VIANT: Does it not follow that, had naval ratings not been employed in the doing of this work, money would have been forthcoming in the Estimates for doing the work by the ordinary operatives in the dockyards?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: No, this work would not have been done at all.

TUBERCULOSIS.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: 12.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the latest available figures, and a comparison with 1922, to show the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis on the officers of His Majesty's Navy and on the following classes of ratings: seamen, signal, telegraphist, engine-room artificer, stoker, shipwright, sick berth, writer, supply, officers' steward and cook, and Royal Marines?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis amongst officers and the specified classes of ratings in the years 1925 (the latest year available) and 1922 is shown in the following table:—

—
1922. Number of Cases
1925 Number of Cases 


Commissioned Officers
8
6


Seamen (signal ratings, etc.)
91
107


Telegraphists
12
12


Engine Room Ratings (Engine Room Artificers, Stokers, etc.)
49
58


Other Artisans (Shipwrights, etc.)
3
9


Sick Berth Staff
4
3


Writers
4
—


Supply Staff
2
5


Ships' Cooks (Officers' Domestics, etc.)
5
12


Royal Marines
10
16

I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that this information is contained in the Reports of the Health of the Navy for the years 1925 and 1922.

MEDICINES (DISPENSING).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that the dispensing of medicines for men in the Army by dispensers who undergo a short period of training is, in the opinion of the Army authorities, performed adequately and economically; and will he, in the interests or economy, introduce the same system into the Navy, and not engage any more fully trained pharmacists?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I am unable to accept the suggestion of the hon. Member that the replacement of fully trained Pharmacists in the Naval Service by dispensers trained in the manner proposed would make for economy, nor do I think that the conditions in the two Services are so analogous as to make such a change practicable. Fully trained Pharmacists are employed only in Naval Hospitals and in the Naval Medical Store Depot. Pharmacists carry out their duties besides those of dispensing. They are responsible, in addition, for the supply of medical stores to the Fleet and for medical store duties in hospitals. Sick Berth ratings are instructed in dispensing duties only so far as they relate to the stores in the service afloat scales, and they perform such duties under the supervision of the medical officer of the ship, who is personally responsible for the correct issue and use of all drugs.

Dr. DAVIES: Am I to understand that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is taking up the position that there is a difference between dispensing for men in the Navy, and dispensing for men in the Army?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I cannot answer for the Army. I can only tell the hon. Member what I believe to be in the best interests of the Navy.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EN-SERVICE MEN (TEACHING PROFESSION).

Mr. BARNES: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of ex-service men trained for the teaching profession under the Ministry of Labour training scheme and the number that have passed into employment in the profession as certificated teachers?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): 1,026 ex-service men were trained as elementary school teachers under the special scheme of the Ministry of Labour. Of these, approximately 1,000 obtained the elementary school teachers certificate and 22 were recognised as uncertificated teachers, 982 are known to have obtained posts as teachers in this country or overseas. 11 are known to have abandoned the teaching profession. Information as to the remaining 33 is not available.

Mr. BARNES: In view of the comparatively small number of these teachers,
compared with the total number of the teaching profession, will the right hon. Gentleman represent to the President of the Board of Education the necessity for paying the same rates to these teachers as those paid to the others engaged in the profession?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

TRANSFER OF WORKERS (MINERS).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, have informed the Industrial Transference Board that, having regard to the distress among coal miners, they are prepared to give sympathetic consideration to the employment within their organisation of as many ex-miners as possible, as and when opportunity occurs; and whether he will circulate information of this offer among other industrial concerns which could employ ex-miners, with a view to inviting similar action on their part?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The Industrial Transference Board has already approached a number of big employers of whom Imperial Chemical Industries, Limited, were one, asking them to give sympathetic consideration as and when opportunities occur to unemployed work-people in the hard hit areas when they are filling vacancies. I hope that employers generally will feel able to follow this policy.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate the information? Will he endeavour to increase the circle of those who have this information?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: We do everything possible to increase the circle, but the mere circulation of information in print is not necessarily the best way of persuading employers to follow this example.

Sir R. THOMAS: What way does the right hon. Gentleman propose?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Personal interview, very largely.

Mr. BATEY: Is the Transference Board in a position to assist financially miners in distressed areas to go to these trades?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not think that point arises from the question. If the hon. Member puts down a question, I shall endeavour to answer it.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour how many miners were unemployed in the County of Durham for each month of the year 1927 and for January and February of the present year; and if he is taking any measures to find work for those so unemployed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Every effort is being made with the assistance of the Industrial Transference Board to find opportunities of employment for as many of these men as possible.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, Sir. Every effort is being made with the assistance of the Transference Board to find opportunities for employment for as many of the men as possible, and, as I stated in reply to a previous question, numbers of employers are being approached, personally and otherwise, in order that such opportunities may he given.

Mr. BATEY: Has the Minister succeeded in finding work for any men yet?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, certainly, a considerable number.

Mr. RICHARDSON: In the County of Durham?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In the County of Durham. If the hon. Member reads the reply which is being circulated, he will see that the total number of unemployed has gone down from 44,000 or 45,000 in one month, and 43,600 in the next month, to 34,000.

Mr. GLYNES: In reference to the work of the Transference Board, may I ask if at some early date we may have a report of its work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider whether any report can be made, which will be illuminating to the House. I have explained on more than one occasion—I do not think the right hon. Gentleman
was in his place—and I wish to try again to make it clear, that the Board itself has no executive power. What it does is to try to use the existing executive departments in order to speed up the work and bring it more prominently before the notice of those by whom employment can be given.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman state that the reduction of the unemployment register in Durham means that men have got work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As far as I am aware that is an inference which can reasonably be drawn.

Mr. LAWSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Transference Board has got these men work?

THE FOLLOWING TABLE shows the numbers of persona classified as belonging to the Coal Mining Industry recorded as Unemployed in the County of Durham from January, 1927, to February, 1928, inclusive.


Date.
Wholly Unemployed.
Temporary Stoppages.
Total.


1927.





24th January
…
…
…
38,123
6,794
44,917


21st February
…
…
…
36,012
7,634
43,646


21st March
…
…
…
33,969
3,325
37,294


25th April
…
…
…
32,055
1,647
33,702


23rd May
…
…
…
30,053
6,266
39,319


20th June
…
…
…
30,469
8,340
38,809


25th July
…
…
…
37,078
26,420
63,498


22nd August
…
…
…
37,399
11,183
48,582


26th September
…
…
…
35,203
7,125
42,328


24th October
…
…
…
36,131
4,138
40,269


21st November
…
…
…
35,668
2,521
38,189


19th December
…
…
…
35,173
1,280
36,453


1928.





23rd January
…
…
…
33,475
3,277
36,752


20th February
…
…
…
32,074
2,801
34,875

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour what classes of schemes for the relief of unemployment are still eligible for grants by the Unemployment Grants Committee?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Details of the schemes which have been the subject of grant by the Unemployment Grants Committee in the past are given in the Appendix to the Sixth (Interim) Report of the Committee published in January of this year. With the exception of road works, which are now dealt with by the

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I say that during the latter weeks in which they have been functioning, they have been among the agencies which have helped. What they have done, has been to co-operate with the existing administrative agencies for doing the work and to get extra pressure brought to bear. The Ministry of Labour and the other Departments with which we are associated, have been trying, right through these last months, to find openings wherever possible.

Mr. E. BROWN: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have spent a long time on this question. This is now becoming a Debate.

Following is the statement:

Ministry of Transport, all such schemes are still eligible for grant if the existing conditions are satisfied.

Mr. MAXTON: Is the Report available in the Vote Office?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think so.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour if instructions have been issued to the Unemployment Grants Committee not to consider any schemes of road construction or road maintenance for grants in aid as schemes for relief of unemployment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As stated in the Sixth (Interim) Report of the Unemployment Grants Committee the Government decided in June, 1926, that grants to local authorities for purposes of road construction and repair should in future be administered only by the Ministry of Transport. Since that date applications for grants in aid of such schemes have been referred by the Committee to that Department.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such schemes as flagging footpaths have been turned down by the Committee as not suitable because they come under the head of road work; and to which Department should application be made in such cases?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As to whether a footpath is a road, or part of a road, is a matter which I should have to consider from that point of view. Perhaps the hon. Member will put the question down again.

Sir F. HALL: As this seems to be a difficulty as between two Departments, could not something be done to prevent any loss of time and labour being involved?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not assume that there is any difficulty. This is the first time that I have heard of it.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is not the real trouble that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is holding up these schemes?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is not the case at all.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Do the Government intend to hold back the schemes until the near approach of a General Election?

SEAMEN (JARROW-ON-TYNE AND HEBBURN).

Mr. ROBERT WILSON: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of altering the arrangement by which unemployed seamen residing in Jarrow-on-Tyne and Hebburn are asked to register at South Shieds Employment Exchange three times per week, involving a journey of three and a-half miles and five miles, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In order to seek employment as seamen it is necessary for these men to visit South Shields,
and I do not think it is unreasonable to require them to attend at the South Shields Exchange on alternate days, such attendance being the ordinary requirement for men residing from two to four miles away, as is the case here.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED, HUDDERSFIELD.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that Mrs. Elsie Todman, of 6, Astor Street, Turnbridge, Huddersfield, and Mrs. Florrie Golden, of 15, Violet Street, Turn-bridge, Huddersfield, were, after drawing only four weeks benefit from the Employment Exchange, suspended in February from the receipt of further benefit; and whether, as both these workers had by their past contributions fully qualified themselves to draw standard benefit from the insurance fund and were also prepared to take any temporary employment during their temporary stoppage of work, he will state the grounds for the suspension of their benefits?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In both cases the insurance officer disallowed benefit on the ground that the applicants were not genuinely seeking work. The court of referees, to whom they appealed, agreed with the insurance officer, as the evidence showed that they were making no real efforts to obtain work but were merely awaiting re-engagement, at an indefinite date, by their former employer.

Mr. HUDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that these two women workers made no effort to take up any temporary employment in place of that which they had hitherto held?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am giving no decision. These are cases which are judged by the statutory authority and this was the decision given by the two grades of statutory authorities—first by the insurance officer and then by the court. I have no power to intervene in regard to their decision or the grounds on which it is given.

Mr. HUDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make this the general rule with regard to workers who are fully qualified for benefit, that in a short period of unemployment, because they cannot get a new job entirely, they shall became ineligible for benefit?

VICTORIA FILMS, LIMITED (WAGES CLAIM).

Mr. MAXTON: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour if his attention has been called to the test case in Derby County Court, where Mr. Fred Relf claimed wages from Victoria Films, Limited, for one day's employment; and whether he is taking steps to see that the other 210 men supplied through the Employment Exchange will receive their wages?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A number of men were supplied to the Victoria Films, Limited, through the local Employment. Exchanges, but the question of the recovery of any wages due is a matter for settlement between the workpeople and the employers, and is not one in which the Ministry have any power to intervene.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that if some 200 persons are given employment through a local Employment Exchange with a private company, and this company defrauds those men of a day's wages, the local Exchange have no responsibility for seeing that they get paid, when their claim for wages has been established in a Court of law?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I cannot be responsible, speaking for the local Exchanges, provided that every ordinary and proper care is taken, either for the employers or for the workmen. I take proper care, and beyond that I cannot undertake responsibility.

Mr. MAXTON: Do I understand then that the Minister has no responsibility for seeing, as these men drew unemployment pay on that day from the Exchange, that the wages for that day were on the shoulders of the person who employed them and not on the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not know what the hon. Member understands, but I have just given the hon. Member my answer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that over 200 of these men drew unemployment benefit for that day, that a test case has been fought, and that the employer has had a decree against him to pay wages, and is not the right hon. Gentleman's Department by law required to take up the question in
order to safeguard the Insurance Fund from having to pay out benefit when wages ought to have been paid?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Not that I am aware of, and I am not aware that I either have the power or the duty to do that.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the Unemployment Insurance Act no workman is entitled to receive unemployment benefit when wages are due; and is it not his function to see that these wages are paid, and not unemployment benefit?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not my function to see that wages are paid. I take every ordinary and proper care to see that employment offered is proper employment, and from both points of view, that the person is suitable and the employment proper, but beyond that my responsibility does not and ought not to go.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty, if he does not take that point of view, to see at least that the Fund is protected?

Mr. HAYES: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to see that the Fund is not used for subsidising the wage bills of employers?

Mr. J. HUDSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman protect the Fund against the workers and not against the employers?

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the facts connected with this case, that these men were representing soldiers of the British Army, and that this Victory Films Company deliberately tried to defraud these men, and—

Mr. SPEAKER: rose
—

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to give notice that at the earliest possible moment will call attention to this question on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

BENEFIT (YOUNG WOMEN).

Mr. POTTS: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has received from the Barnsley Board of Guardians a protest against the Unemployment Insurance Act reducing benefit for young women 18 to 21 years of age, deeming it totally in-
adequate to meet the necessities of life; and whether he proposes to introduce an amending Bill at an early date?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.

INSURED PERSONS.

Mr. E. BROWN: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of insured persons at the end of June each year from 1921 to 1927, respectively, age 65 and over?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The estimated number of persons in Great Britain aged 65 years and over insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts at July of each of the years 1921 to 1927 were as follow:


Year.



Number.


1921
…
…
…
312,000


1922
…
…
…
321,000


1923
…
…
…
324,000


1924
…
…
…
330,000


1925
…
…
…
333,000


1926
…
…
…
336,000


1927
…
…
…
342,000

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet appointed the chairmen of the courts of referees for Glasgow, and the members, both employers and workpeople; if so, can he state the names; and, if not, when he will be in a position to do so?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the hen. Member is no doubt aware, the Glasgow Court of Referees has at present two chairmen, together with panels of representatives of employers and workers. The necessary additions for the purposes of the new Act are in process of being made, and I anticipate that they will be complete in a few weeks' time.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to reappoint people regardless of how they have been carrying out their duties in the past?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not at all necessarily the case. It is my wish
to have people, both as chairmen of referees and on the panels from whom other members are taken, who can and do fulfil their duties as adequately as possible.

Mr. BUCHANAN: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in his answer he states that he is reappointing the present men, and making additions, and has he made inquiries to see that the present men have intelligently attended to their work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have, as a matter of fact, been making inquiries on that particular point, and I have asked for it to be taken into consideration in the new courts that are being set up.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the need for appointing these people earlier than a few weeks hence, as the Act will be in operation in a few weeks' time, and that it needs some study?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member has already got a question on the Paper dealing with that point, and perhaps he will postpone that aspect of it until that question is reached.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has generally appointed the new chairmen of courts of referees throughout the country, together with lay members; the numbers appointed and the numbers to be appointed; and if he intends to institute any training class for them to study and be trained fully under the new Act?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The necessary arrangements for setting up courts of referees are in hand. It is not yet possible to say what the number of additional chairmen and members will be. I propose to give all members of courts the summary of the Acts recently published as well as other explanatory papers.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how he proposes to recruit the chairmen of these courts? Is it to be by competition or by patronage?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is by neither, in the ordinary acceptation of those words. It is by suitability for the post.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the other explanatory papers, in addition to the one already issued, be available to Members of this House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If the hon. Member will communicate with me, I will see if they can be made available for those who wish to read them.

JUVENILES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has yet appointed a Committee to advise him on the question of juvenile unemployment in Scotland; if so, the names of the members; and, if not, when he will be in a position to do so?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The appointment of members of the Scottish Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment is proceeding, and I hope before Easter to be in a position to announce the names of the members.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what channels he has consulted as to the appointment of these persons?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: A large number of channels, and, I imagine, practically all those that are appropriate for this purpose.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only persons whom he has consulted in this matter are people concerned with his own party and not with anybody else?

NUMBER of INSURED PERSONS CLASSIFIED as belonging to the COAL MINING INDUSTRY recorded as unemployed at certain Employment Exchanges in Yorkshire.


—
21st Nov., 1927.
19th Dec., 1927.
23rd Jan., 1928.
20th Feb., 1928.





Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.


Doncaster
…
…
493
—
342
498
428
854
646
2,808


Wakefield
…
…
129
918
183
323
283
432
272
1,060


Barnsley
…
…
1,006
11
970
35
976
37
996
28


Rotherham
…
…
303
85
342
767
291
1,254
322
1,631


Pontefract
…
…
240
232
256
137
258
93
393
692

MEXBOROUGH.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 30 and 31.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) how many persons applied for extended benefit at

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: Other hon. Members must have an opportunity to ask questions. There have been 20 supplementary questions on the last few questions.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the suggestion that I take an undue share of the Question Time of this House is not founded in fact. This is the first time that I have risen with a supplementary question on this particular question, and I suggest to you that I am not overstepping my rights as a private Member.

Mr. SPEAKER: I was not referring to the hon. Member in particular, but to the series of supplementary questions which have been addressed to the Minister. I must have regard to the questions as a whole.

MINERS, YORKSHIRE.

Mr. PALING: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners recorded as unemployed at the Employment Exchanges at Doncaster, Wakefield, Barnsley, Rotherham and Pontefract for each of the last four months, respectively?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

the Employment Exchange, Mexborough, during January and February, 1928, how many applications were successful, and how many were rejected;

(2) how many applications for extended benefits were rejected during January and February, 1928, by the Mexborough Employment Exchange on the grounds that the applicants were not attempting to find employment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: During the two months ended 13th February, 1928, 419 applications for extended benefit were considered by the Mexborough Local Employment Committee, of which 332 were recommended for allowance and 87 for disallowance. Of this number 36 applications were recommended for disallowance on the ground that the applicants were not making every reasonable effort to obtain suitable employment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not a fact that unemployment in that district is constantly on the increase; and that these applicants arc not only being deprived of that to which they are legitimately entitled, but are being grossly insulted by the suggestion that they are not attempting to find work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to both supplementary questions, as far as I know, is in the negative. I have no reason to believe that the disallowance was contrary to the merits, and I do not believe for a single moment that any insult was either intended or given.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that within the last three weeks I have given two cases where workmen have been employed continuously for over 56 weeks, and, when they have sought unemployment pay have had their applications rejected on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work? Does he think that fair administration?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot argue that question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of people who were registered as unemployed at the Mexborough Employment Exchange in the last week of January and the last week of February, or the latest date for which figures are available?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of persons on the registers of the Mexborough Employment Exchange at 30th January, 1928, was 828, including
254 temporarily stopped, as compared with 3,081, including 2,316 temporarily stopped, at 5th March, 1928.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of these figures, which show a 400 per cent increase in that period, does the right hon. Gentleman think that these decisions of the Mexborough Employment Exchange are consistent with the known facts of unemployment?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have no reason to believe that they are not. It is a question of the temporary stoppage of a certain number of persons, and the duty of all Exchanges, whether by the insurance officers for standard benefit, or the committees for extended benefit, are to look into the whole facts of the case. I will review any case that is brought to me.

ASSIZES (GRAND JURORS).

Mr. LUNN: 34.
asked the Attorney-General if he is aware that persons called upon to serve on grand juries at Assizes have to pay a fee when they attend; that such fee is a hardship to some people who have no objection otherwise to serving; will he say for what purposes the fee is used; and will he see to its abolition?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I am not aware of any such practice, and if the hon. Member will communicate particulars to me, I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

TAX OFFICE, PRESTON.

Mr. A. R. KENNEDY: 35.
asked the Under-Secretary of Stave for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is now in a position to state what steps will be taken to improve the accommodation in the Preston Tax Office (No. 2)?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT(Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): Steps have already been taken to improve the lighting and ventilation of these offices, and arrangements have been made to place the accommodation now occupied
by the Ministry of Pensions Area Office at the disposal of the Inland Revenue to relieve the congestion in the tax offices.

FACTORY INSPECTORS' ASSISTANTS.

Mr. HAYES: 51.
asked the Home Secretary whether the duties assigned to factory inspectors' assistants differ from those of inspectors; whether the present arrangement permits of two or more officers visiting factories and workshops situate within the same locality or the same block of buildings; whether assistants are appointed for their practical acquaintance with industrial processes; and, if so, what are the reasons for restricting their inspections to particular classes of workplaces?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. The main duty of the assistants is to inspect workshops and thus leave the inspectors more time for the inspection of the more important works. Practical experience of some branch of industrial work has been a necessary qualification for the appointment and assistants who have shown special ability have been promoted to the rank of inspector from time to time. Eleven have been so promoted since the War.

HYDE PARK (LOUD SPEAKERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he gave permission for 16 loud speakers to be suspended from trees in Hyde Park in order to relay a political speech given by the Prime Minister in the Albert Hall on 10th March last; and whether permission is to be given similarly, whenever asked for, for any political meeting, entertainment, concert, boxing match, or other happening in the Albert Hall?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The First Commissioner is not prepared to undertake to give permission, whenever asked, for the relaying in Hyde Park of any happening in the Albert Hall, but, subject to there being no conflict with the Regulations of the Park, he is ready to consider other
applications for permission to relay speeches delivered in the Hall.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there to be any limit placed on this nuisance against the amenities of the Park? Is every political speech in future to be relayed, and the amenities of the Park interfered with accordingly?

Sir V. HENDERSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman did not listen to my reply.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not Hyde Park for the enjoyment of all persons of all parties and all ages; and is not this relaying of political speeches in a public park a nuisance?

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Will the First Commissioner consider putting some silencers in this House?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COLLIERIES, SWANSEA DISTRICT (PUMPING).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 37.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he has received representations from the colliery owners in the Swansea districts whose properties are being threatened by the rising water in the old workings formerly pumped from Collards pit; and whether his Department will bring all the interested parties together in a joint pumping scheme to save the neighbouring collieries?

The SECRETARY for MINES(Commodore Douglas King): I assume the hon. Member refers to the cessation of pumping at Callands Pit in July, 1926. His Majesty's Divisional Inspector of Mines has watched the situation continuously from the standpoint of safety, but I have received no request from the owners for the formulation of a joint pumping scheme, and I am not hopeful that such a proposal would be practicable.

Mr. PALING: Is not this precisely one of the schemes for amalgamation which was recommended by the Commission; and, if the owners will not do anything in order to bring this about, is the Mines Department watching the matter with a view to compelling them to do it in order to keep the pits going?

Commodore KING: I understand the complaint is that they are not amalgamating at once.

Mr. PALING: But is that not more reason why the Department should compel them to do something in view of the fact that the pits are closing?

Commodore KING: No; I have said that it is not practicable.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is there not a grave source of danger to the miners if the mines should be subsequently opened; and does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think that it is his duty, from the point of view of human life, to take some steps?

Commodore KING: I understand that there is no danger.

Mr. PALING: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not know that the only practical way of doing this is by amalgamation?

POLISH COAL.

Mr. LAWSON: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information to the effect that Polish coal is subsidised in order to compete with British coal in foreign markets: and, if so, the form, conditions and amount of such subsidy?

Commodore KING: I am not aware of any subsidy given to Polish coal in order that it may compete with British coal in foreign markets. Polish coal for export gets preferential railway rates, particulars of which were given on the 6th March in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. G. Hall).

Captain STREATFEILD: Is my hon. and gallant Friend not aware that the effect of this Polish subsidy is that, in the case of the Scottish, and the Northumberland and Durham coalfields, a few colliery undertakings are competing with the resources of a whole nation, and that some steps should be taken by the Government to deal with this situation?

Commodore KING: I do not think that my hon. Friend listened to the reply.

Captain STREATFEILD: Am I not right in saying that the railway rates are subsidised, and that that is equivalent to placing the f.o.b. price of coal on a much reduced basis?

Commodore KING: I said that preferential railway rates are given.

Captain STREATFEILD: Then may I ask if that is not equivalent to a cheaper f.o.b. price?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNITY AND CHILD WELFARE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 39.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the lack of improvement in the maternal mortality rate, he will, with a view to creating a more efficient maternity service, consider the advisability of modifying the present maternity benefit in such a way as to provide medical and nursing services in addition to a cash payment and of linking up such services with maternity and child welfare work of local authorities?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The question of the advisability of modifying the present arrangements for maternity benefit under the National Health Insurance Scheme in the direction indicated by the hon. Member was raised at a recent meeting of the Approved Societies Consultative Council and was referred by them to a special sub-committee. As soon as my right hon. Friend receives the Report of the Council on the subject it will have his most careful consideration.

INFANT MORTALITY, HOUGHTON-LE-SPRING AND CHESTER-LE- STREET.

Major ROPNER: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received the Reports of the medical officers of health for Houghton-le-Spring and Chester-le-Street; and whether they show that there has been any increase in the infant mortality rate due to want of proper food and nourishment of mothers and children?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has received Reports from the medical officers of health of the districts mentioned. The infant mortality figures for these districts during 1927 have just reached me and show a small increase in each district as compared with 1926, though the rates are lower than for the years 1924 and 1925. Only the Report of the medical officer of health for Houghton-le-Spring suggests under-
nourishment as one of the causes of the increase, and his Report was not written until the 22nd February. My right hon. Friend is advised that other medical authorities in Durham attribute the temporary increase in infant mortality in that county during the last few months of 1927 to the exceptional prevalence of bronchitis and pneumonia.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the infantile mortality rate in Houghton-le-Spring for the quarter ending December last was 206.5, for October over 300, and for January 210; and is he aware that the medical officer himself said that that is mainly due to under-nourishment?

Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated in my reply what the position is.

Mr. LAWSON: Has not the medical officer of health for Chester-le-Street repeatedly made a statement to the effect that there is want of proper nourishment and food on the part of children and mothers; and is it the doctrine of the Ministry of Health that there is proof of destitution only when there is death from starvation?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does not the fact that the Report states that deaths have been due to bronchitis show that there is a lack of clothing as well as of food?

Sir K. WOOD: No, I am not aware of that.

Mr. BATEY: Seeing that the medical officer of health for Houghton-le-Spring said that the high infantile mortality was due to under-nourishment, what steps is the Ministry of Health prepared to take?

Sir K. WOOD: I have already stated that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health takes the view adopted by the majority of medical officers.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) ACT.

Captain CAZALET: 41.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Wiltshire County Council has refused various applications in regard to the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, and that it has declined to give any reasons for these refusals; and whether he is contemplating introducing legislation to
compel county councils to carry out this Act?

Sir K. WOOD: I am aware of the action taken by the Wiltshire County Council. At the date of the last return they had received 41 applications for grants, of which 17 had been allowed. I understand that at a recent meeting the county council resolved to exercise discrimination in taking advantage of the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I understand that the discrimination referred to is between those who are thought to have means of their own sufficient to carry out improvements and those who have not, but my right hon. Friend has already expressed his view that no such test ought to be imposed under the Act, the benefits of which go to the tenants rather than to the landlords. Although the progress so far made is disappointing, my right hon. Friend hopes that it will not be necessary to introduce further legislation.

Mr. HURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that some of these refusals have evidently been made under a misapprehension, and gill he suggest to the county council that it might be as well to reconsider them in view of the new facts which have come to light?

Sir K. WOOD: If my hon. Friend will give me the particulars, I will gladly consider them.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that the experience in Wiltshire is identical with the experience all over the country, and that this Act is scarcely worth the paper it is printed on?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir, certainly not.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. W. THORNE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that a large number of men entitled to unemployment benefit have been disqualified from drawing their pay in consequence of being eligible for old age pension, and that in consequence of the long delay experienced in obtaining the pension they have to apply to boards of guardians for relief; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has no information to the effect stated in the question, but if the hon. Member
will furnish him with particulars he will have them investigated.

IMPORTED POTATOES (FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE).

Major CARVER: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the amount of foreign potatoes imported into this country during the last three years; whether any cases have been brought to his notice of foot-and-mouth disease being brought here owing to the bags containing these potatoes; and if he is prepared to institute an inquiry into this matter?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The total imports of potatoes into this country during 1925, 1926 and 1927 amounted to 491,946, 338,812 and 291,540 tons, respectively.
I can find no evidence of any outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in this country being due to sacks in which foreign potatoes have been imported. Careful inquiry as to the source of infection in each case is made at the time of the outbreak.

Major CARVER: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the percentage of foreign potatoes imported into this country, compared with the crop grown here?

Mr. GUINNESS: I cannot give the exact figures without notice, but four-fifths of our importation is of new potatoes, which do not come directly into competition with the greater part of our home crop. The percentage of imported main crop potatoes is generally between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. I will give my hon. and gallant Friend the figures if he will put down a question.

Mr. CRAWFURD: May I ask whether the proportion of imported potatoes to home-grown potatoes does affect the question of foot-and-mouth disease?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, I do not think it does.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY (EXCESSIVE PRODUCTION).

Mr. W. BAKER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the growing
perfection of technical processes and the consequent excess of production over consumption may be important causes of unemployment, he will consider the desirability of appointing an expert inquiry at the earliest possible date?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The matter to which the hon. Member refers is one which falls within the scope of Sir Arthur Balfour's Committee on Industry and Trade. I understand that that Committee is at present engaged in the preparation of its Report.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Does the Prime Minister consider that the excess of production ought to cause destitution, and why?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to have notice of that question.

IRON AND STEEL TRADE.

Sir BASIL PETO: 46.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that it is impossible for merchants in this country to get any reliable information through any official channels as to the rates of wages paid in the iron and steel industry on the Continent of Europe, he will reconsider the conditions in the White Paper procedure with regard to applications for safeguarding duties?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 12th April last, a copy of which I am sending him. I am not aware that any application for a safeguarding duty has been hindered by lack of the information to which my hon. Friend refers.

Sir B. PETO: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that long after the answer to which he has referred me, that is, on Monday last, the Minister of Labour stated that his Department could get no reliable figures whatever from the competing countries as to the cost of labour in the steel trade, and, in these circumstances, can he suggest how industrialists in this country engaged in that industry can possibly get the evidence required?

Mr. WILLIAMS: My answer refers to inquiries which have taken place under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and
in none of those cases, so far as I am aware, has the application been hindered by lack of that information.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is it not the fact that, when the inquiry into the question of a safeguarding duty on cutlery was being held, the hurrying forward of that inquiry did not prevent evidence being brought from the district in Germany where the industry is carried on?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is the case.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will my hon. Friend represent to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade the necessity of doing away with a lot of these restrictions on safeguarding applications?

TEXTILE INDUSTRY (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to cases of cotton mills in this country being dismantled and their machinery sold abroad to countries where labour is cheaper and hours of labour longer; and whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps to facilitate a better re-organisation of the cotton industry and the drastic reduction of inflated balance-sheets?

Mr. ROBINSON: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the employers' and workers' representatives in the cotton industry have agreed to an inquiry into the costs of production and distribution of cotton products, he proposes to take any steps in the matter, either by consulting with the parties on the scope and form of the inquiry or by the appointment of a Government Committee to investigate fully all the questions affecting costs of production and distribution?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for the Elland Division (Mr. Robinson) on 9th February, and to the statement which he made in the House on the Debate on the Vote on Account on 1st March.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the report to which he refers me made no reference whatever to the dismantling of mills and to the sale of the machinery to cheap labour countries?

Mr. HILTON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only yesterday in Manchester a mill was put up for auction—an old-fashioned well-established concern without any inflated capital—and no bid came from those present? The foreigner is now at liberty to bid for it at secondhand breaking-up price.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I shall be glad to have particulars of that ease.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of the numerous foreign artificial silk firms to the fact that these factories are vacant, and see whether they cannot possibly be encouraged to set to work at once, in order to relieve the distress in Manchester?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I will consider that suggestion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Was the hon. Gentleman's attention called to the leading article in the "Times" yesterday, in which the blame for the whole trouble is put on this very fact of the over-inflation of capital?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I read that very interesting article and obtained much profit from it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the supplementary question which I put? Is it the case that in the report to which he refers me there is no mention whatever of the dismantling of mills and the sale of machinery to cheap labour countries?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I do not think there was any specific reference to that, but it all arises out of the general state of the industry, which is dealt with in the speech referred to.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it not the case that the hon. Member refers me for an answer to my question to a report which gives me no answer whatever?

FOOD COUNCIL (LEGAL POWERS).

Mr. JOHNSTON: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the published statement of members of the Food Council that their efforts are rendered largely nugatory by the absence of legal powers in dealing with witnesses; and what steps he proposes to take to extend
the powers of the Food Council to deal effectively with food profiteering?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have seen statements in the press by one member of the Food Council. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 2nd February, 1926.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this opinion expressed by one Member is not held by the majority? Will he take steps to ascertain whether that is not the fact?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: With reference to the last part of the answer, is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the only way to prevent profiteering in food is to restore competition among retailers, and that that will be obtained by restoring to them the liberty which was taken away from them by D.O.R.A.?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have not personally received the opinions.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Will the hon. Gentleman find out?

Mr. WALLHEAD: What is the use of referring one to an answer given two years ago?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Because it reminds hen Members that they ought to study the OFFICIAL REPORT before they put down questions.

BRITISH ARMY (MILITARY TATTOOS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements are being made for any military tattoos this year; and, if so, the dates and the towns where they will be held?

Mr. F. C. THOMSON (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The organisation of military tattoos is, subject to certain conditions, left to the discretion of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Command concerned. The only tattoos in 1928 of which my right hon. Friend is at present aware are at Aldershot from 19th to 23rd June and at Tidworth, probably in August.

Sir F. HALL: In the event of another tattoo being decided upon, will the hon. and learned Gentleman draw the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the fact that there is an important place known as the Crystal Palace which belongs to the nation, and which might be utilised for this purpose?

ABINGDON RURAL COUNCIL (PETROL STORAGE).

Mr. W. BAKER: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Abingdon Rural Council, at its meeting on the 13th ultimo, refused to grant a number of applications for permission to store petrol except on the condition that no Russian petrol should be stored or sold: and whether, seeing that the rural council has no legal right to impose such a condition and in view of the precedent created by the Home Office at Barnstaple, he will inform the rural council as to the extent of their powers?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no information as to the alleged action of the council. I may remind the hon. Member that, by Section 10 of the Petroleum Act, if the local authority refuses a licence or grants one on conditions with which the applicant is dissatisfied, the applicant has a right of appeal to me. I do not think I can properly express an opinion upon cases which may come before me on appeal.

Mr. BAKER: Is it not a fact that the Home Office intervened under similar circumstances at Barnstaple as is stated in the question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I have read the whole of the inquiry relating to the Barnstaple case, and, if I may say, with great respect, the hon. Member's statement is quite untrue.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not a fact that any local authority is entitled to protect itself against a legal action for receiving stolen property?

FIREARMS.

Mr. HAYES: 52.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that sales are taking place in this country of large quantities of so-called toy pistols and
revolvers; whether he will say if they are manufactured in this country as well as imported from abroad; whether he has any information as to the ease with which these weapons can be converted into lethal weapons, and whether he will declare by rule, under the Firearms Act, 1920, such weapons to be of a dangerous character?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir, but I have no information as to the extent to which such imitation firearms are made at home and abroad, respectively. The ease or difficulty of making them capable of discharging a missile depends in each case on the nature and thickness of the metal to be drilled out or sawn off; and whether they would then be lethal or not would in each case be a question of fact for a Court to decide. It is also for the Courts to decide whether before or after such alteration they would come within the Firearms Act, 1920. I have no power to make rules of the kind suggested.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the great importance of public security, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he has had any representations made to him on this subject by the various authorities concerning the use of firearms; and has his attention been drawn to a decision given by the Crewe magistrates, who discharged a case on technical grounds and suggested that the use of these firearms was a very urgent matter which the Home Office ought to take up?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not read the particular case at Crewe, but I have had my attention drawn to several other cases. Legislation would be necessary to deal with the matter. As far as I can find out, I have no power to deal with these cases, and, unless the House is prepared to grant a Bill without discussion, I am afraid that there would be no time to introduce such a Measure.

Mr. HAYES: If I can supply the right hon. Gentleman with evidence that we are willing to give facilities for the passing of an Amending Bill, will he be prepared to introduce such a Measure?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am always prepared to consider the wishes of the House.

Mr. CRAWFURD: In view of the apparent ease with which firearms can be obtained, and in view of the fact that several well-known crimes have been committed by the use of firearms, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some sort of inquiry should be set up to go into the whole question of the use of firearms?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think my Department has collected all the necessary information.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it not possible that this is another Russian conspiracy?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Hardly.

Mr. HAYES: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of duty received in respect of toy pistols and revolvers imported into this country during the past 12 months for which figures are available, and similar information in respect of the lethal weapons?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. There is no import duty on toy pistols, revolvers, or lethal weapons.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (LAPSED POLICIES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 55.
asked the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that during the last eight years seven million policies have lapsed in one assurance company; that the holders lost every penny of the premiums paid; and if he will state whether, in consequence of the Industrial Asurance Act, 1923, not meeting the situation, the Government will agree to set up a commission of inquiry?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have no information as to the number of policies which have lapsed during the past eight years. As I informed the hon. Member on the 5th March, the Act of 1923, which will come fully into operation on 7th June next, embodied the results of very careful investigation by a Committee presided over by Lord Parmoor, and I do not think that a further commission of inquiry at the present time would serve a useful purpose.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Member not aware that if he would inquire further
into the number of lapsed policies in the case of one of these firms, it would prove to his satisfaction the absolute need for an inquiry?

Mr. SAMUEL: If I might make a suggestion to the hon. Member it would be to point out that Section 24 and Section 34 of the 1923 Act were put in for the purposes of giving effect to the recommendations of the Parmoor Committee on the points now under discussion. I suggest that the hon. Member should wait until after the 7th June next when those Sections come into operation, and give the two Sections time to be tested adequately; then he might put another question if he finds it is necessary.

Mr. THORNE: What is the good of waiting when people are being robbed every day of their money and their rights?

Mr. SAMUEL: As the hon. Member has raised this matter in the House, a report will no doubt appear in the Press, in that way the public will be warned.

Mr. PALING: Is there any evidence that when the Act comes into operation lapsed policies will be dealt with under it?

Mr. SAMUEL: It will be open to the hon. Member to draw attention to the matter after that time when the Act has come into operation and been tested, and then I shall be glad to deal with the question again if the hon. Member should think it desirable to return to it.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not a fact that many of these people, owing to unemployment, have lost the benefits which would otherwise have accrued to them and will the hon. Member promise to have some sort of inquiry or investigation made into these policies at the time that they are issued.

Mr. SAMUEL: All those questions were gone into by the Parmoor Committee.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The Parmoor Committee sat quite a long time ago, and these are matters which have arisen during the past two or three years.

VICTORIA FILMS, LIMITED (WAGES CLAIM).

Mr. MAXTON: I beg to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "The improper use of the Unemployment Fund in subsidising the wages bill of the Victoria Films, Limited."

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has submitted his proposal to me. I think it is quite a proper question to discuss on the Estimates, but it does not, in my view, come within the definition of Standing Order No. 10.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I put this consideration to you, Mr. Speaker. The Estimates may not come on for some time, and Standing Order No. 10 was agreed to by this House for the purpose of dealing with matters of urgency. There are over 200 men concerned in this case. They are unemployed, and liable to be dispersed, and, if that occurs, they would have to seek work. Unless this matter is dealt with urgently, they are likely to lose the money due to them. In these circumstances, and in view of the fact that we may have to wait some time for the Estimates, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that von should allow a discussion to-night.

Mr. SPEAKER: It all depends upon what my view is as to whether or not this case comes ender standing Order No. 10.

Mr. MAXTON: I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this film company has made an improper use of the machinery of the Unemployment Insurance Act; that they have deliberately attempted to defraud men out of a day's wage, thus making them a charge upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund. A test case has been settled in the Derby Court which establishes the right of one man to wages from this company for that particular day. There are 200 other cases which are affected in this way. The Minister has told us in this House that he has no responsibility for seeing that these men are properly treated. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker that if the Minister is prepared to deal very smartly and harshly with any worker who is found to be defrauding the public it is a matter
of urgent importance that these 200 men should be protected against this particular private company?

Mr. CONNOLLY: Before you give your decision, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that a most important public situation has arisen on account of the answers which have been given this afternoon to questions on this subject by the Minister of Labour, who has told us that in case of any default by an employer a claim for unemployment benefit becomes legal and legitimate. That is an important public announcement, and it should be a matter for discussion here to-night.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have heard the whole of the supplementary questions which have been put, and I think I am fully seized of this matter. Clearly, in my view it does not come under Standing Order No. 10. If the hon. Member likes to raise this question to-morrow night after Eleven o'Clock, I think there will he sufficient time then to go into the matter.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. May I submit that the concession you have now made, after ruling that the matter can be raised only on the Estimates, shows that you believe that a matter of urgency really does arise? [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] May I suggest that the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Newcastle (Mr. Connolly) should weigh with you, and that you should accept a Motion for the Adjournment of the House this afternoon?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Rules governing the Eleven o'Clock Adjournment are similar to those in the case of the Estimates, and the opportunity is open to any hon. Member.

BRIDGES BILL,

"to amend the Law with respect to bridges and the roads carried thereby and the approaches thereto," presented by Lieut.-Colonel Windsor-Clive: supported by Sir Frank Nelson, Rear-Admiral Sueter, Commander Williams, and Brigadier-General Brooke; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd March, and to be printed. [Bill 63.]

DOG RACING.

Mr. BUCHAN: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to provide for the licensing of dog racing courses.
I can explain the purpose of this Bill in two sentences. It is proposed, in the first place, that any new dog racing course, before it is opened, must receive, a licence from the local authority of the locality where it is situated; and, in the second place, it is proposed that existing courses shall receive a similar licence within six months after the passing of this Bill.
The principle which this Bill has been drafted to give effect to is a very simple one. I have no criticism to make of greyhound racing as a sport. It may be all that its supporters claim. It may be that watching a dog pursuing an electric hare brings the spectator under the healing and beneficent influence of a more primitive world, which, I understand, is the justification of outdoor sports. We particularly wish to raise no needless prejudice on this point, and I personally have very little sympathy with the temper of mind of anyone who is willing to crab another man's game merely because he has no personal interest in it.
As hon. Members are well aware, however, in the last twelve months dog racing has become a very large and highly commercialised enterprise. At this moment, I understand, no fewer than 154 companies have been registered to exploit it, and there is a danger that, whatever be the intention of the promoters, these race tracks may be turned into gigantic open-air casinos. To these courses very large crowds arc drawn from a very large area, and large sums of money are constantly passing from the locality into other hands. Such a situation raises a very difficult problem for the public authorities, but over this great and growing activity local authorities have, at present, absolutely no control, except in the rare cases where the Town Planning Act can be applied.
This Bill, as I have said, takes no exception to greyhound racing as a sport. All that it lays down is that, an activity with such wide and important and still imperfectly understood social implications shall receive a licence from the local authority concerned, on such terms as
that local authority cares to impose. It may be asked why dog racing is singled out for this special control, when there are other sports in connection with which betting is also permitted. I think the right answer is, its great and increasing magnitude. There is no parallel at all between it and horse racing as conducted at the present moment. An ordinary race meeting is an occasional event
dog racing is becoming a universal and habitual pastime, with almost daily fixtures. I have no love for unnecessary interference with the rights of the private citizen, but when any sport, I do not care what sport it may be, grows to such dimensions, it is surely inevitable that cognisance be taken of it by a public authority.
I am privileged to say that the principle of this Bill has the cordial support of a very large number of local authorities—I think I might almost say their unanimous support, for so far we have never heard of a single dissentient voice in any direction. Within the last few days the promoters of the Bill have received, in addition to a constant stream of resolutions from town councils, urban district councils, watch committees, housing and town planning committees, charitable bodies and religious denominations—in addition to these they have received resolutions of approval from the City Councils of Hull, Norwich, Sheffield, Coventry, Cardiff and Portsmouth, from the Conference of Social Work, which, as hon. Members are aware, includes representatives of almost every charitable and philanthropic activity in this country, and from that most important body, the Council of Municipal Corporations. The principle of this Bill, as I understand it, is an elementary principle of democratic government, that the locality should have authority in matters which vitally concern its well-being, and as such I submit it with confidence to the approval of this House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Buchan, Mr. Compton, Mr. Dunnico, Mr. Fenby, Sir Walter Greaves-Lord, Sir Robert Hamilton, Sir Alfred Hopkinson, Mr. Robert Hudson, Mr. R. Morrison, Mr. J. H. Thomas, Mr. George Thorne and Sir George Hamilton.

DOG RACING BILL,

"to provide for the licensing of dog racing courses," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed.

Mr. W. THORNE: May I ask the Home Secretary whether he will advise the Government to give facilities for passing this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which should be put on the Paper.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir Samuel Roberts to act as Chairman of Standing Committee C (in respect of the Petroleum (Amendment) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.

LEEDS AND LIVERPOOL CANAL BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

NEWQUAY WATER BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

DARTMOUTH CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS,

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the periods limited by the Bromborough Dock Act, 1923, for making and completing the dock and the
other works by that Act authorised." [Bromborough Dock Bill [Lords.]

Railway (Road Transport) Bills,

That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution communicated to them on Tuesday last: "That it is expedient that the London, Midland and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill, and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill, be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."

BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Orders of the Day — EMPIRE TRADE.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I beg to move,
That this House is of opinion that the pursuit of a vigorous policy furthering Imperial trade and developing Imperial resources is desirable in the interests of the industries of this country and of the Empire.
I move this Motion all the more emphatically in that it gives us an opportunity of considering some of those wider principles of Empire which I feel, in common with other Members, and, I think, Members on all sides of the House, that we get insufficient time in this House to consider. I have drawn this Motion widely enough to enable us to have a general discussion on Empire trade this afternoon, and if, during the course of the Debate, we manage to bring out present points or new points of view, I think the promoters may well feel that the time of the House has not been wasted. I should like to begin by calling attention to one or two points in connection with the situation. During the course of the last few years we have had an increase in the number of people in this country who are insured and in employment, amounting to over 1,000,000. It is not easy to give an absolutely correct figure, but that is near enough for my purpose. At the same time, we are all unfortunately aware that we have had a very large increase in the number of people who are not in employment. Meanwhile, ever since the War, the country has been pursuing a policy of increased social services. We are spending more money on pensions, on education and on social services of all sorts, and, for myself, I think very rightly so. During the last few years, as was pointed out by the Prime Minister the other day, real wages have shown a tendency to increase. During the period I have under review—in fact for many years—this country has led the way, at any rate as far as the old world is concerned, in the matter of social service and social conditions, and if we are to maintain that position—and I am sure it is the wish of every Member that we should do so—in face of a growing population and growing demands for increased services all
over the world, there is only one way we can do it, and that is by developing the trade and production of our country. I am sure there is no other method. It is the only way by which we can satisfactorily improve and even maintain our present position.
It is no use merely looking to our home markets. Of course, I appreciate, in common with all other Members, that the home market is a very important section of Empire trade. I think it is sometimes forgotten that this country is part of the Empire at all. We must not make that mistake; but if we are to develop as we have developed in the past, we have to look outside this country, and look for an increase in our external trade. When we look at some of our old markets, some of which have stood us well in the past, we find that the position now is one of very great difficulty. Europe, still torn by the effects of the late War, full of modern national feelings, which have been created by the sub-division of the Continent into a much larger number of small peoples who are trying to develop and, in fact, in some cases trying to start industries of their own and impose tariffs, is no longer the easy field for us that it was. Of our total exports in 1913, Europe took something like 34¾ per cent. By 1927, that figure had dropped to about 30¼ per cent. Since 1923 the figures have shown a steady and persistent decline. It may well be, and I hope it will be, that with increased settlement of the affairs of Europe and increased stability, we shall get back something we have lost. Nevertheless, the prospects in Europe are none too bright, and, for that matter, neither are they a little further afield.
In the past, we have done a very great trade in the Far East. What is happening in the Far East to-day? Let me take two examples which, I think, the House will agree are striking examples. China, in 1913, took 16½ per cent. of her total imports from this country. By 1923 that figure had fallen to 12.7 per cent., and in 1925 as low as 9.7 per cent. Similarly. Japan, starting with the same figure, had fallen in 1923 to 12 per cent., and in 1925 to 8½ per cent. So that in the Far East you see the same story being told that is being told in Europe. To continue our tour of the world, take another market which has been a very great one in the past. In South and
Central America, as I think, an even more alarming situation arises. Let me take, for example, the two largest States of South America. In 1913 Brazil took 24½ per cent. of her total imports from this country, whereas in 1925 the figure had fallen to 22.2 per cent.—not a very large drop in that instance, but, for other reasons which I will mention in a minute, I think a serious one.
The Argentine is a country which one would expect to take a very large percentage of our goods, because we have got a very large amount of capital invested out there. In the case of that country the figure has fallen from, 31 per cent. in 1913 to just under 22 per cent. in 1925. What, I think, makes the figures in South America even more alarming, is that while we have been losing steadily, the United States have equally steadily been gaining, and I think it will prove very difficult indeed for this country to overtake the United States. Their figures for Brazil have risen from 15.7 in 1913 to 24.6 in 1925, while in the Argentine they have risen from 14.7 in 1913 to 23½ in 1925. I think those figures show that, while we have been going back, our great trade rivals in the West—our friendly trade rivals may I say; nevertheless, our trade rivals—have been forging ahead, have captured the markets and dug themselves in, and it will be very difficult indeed for us to dig them out now. Whichever way we look over the world, whether in Europe, the Far East or in the great continent of the new world, we find the position a depressing one.
But if our foreign trade is not in that flourishing condition we would like to see: if the picture one paints of our foreign markets is gloomy, we have at least the satisfaction of realising that there is still such a thing as the British Empire, which covers a quarter of the inhabitable surface of the Globe, contains a quarter of its total population and is at least an area on which we can work with some possibility and some hope of success. Broadly speaking—and these figures are very broad—while we supply to foreign countries 10 per cent. of their total imports, we supply to the British Empire 40 per cent. That, in itself, is an encouraging figure, and there are one or two other figures I would like
to quote in this connection. In 1913 the Empire took 37¼ per cent. of our total exports. In 1927 that figure had increased to rather over 42½ per cent., and since 1923, at a time when our exports to Europe have been gradually dwindling, our exports to the Empire have been very rapidly rising, and if we take figures on a comparative basis, that is to say, if we work out the 1927 figures on the same basis of value as the 1923 figures, in that time the increase in exports amounts to no less than £80,000,000.
That, I think, is a very satisfactory and highly encouraging figure. But I do not want the House to think that I am trying to make this point to infer that there is necessarily any antithesis between foreign trade and Empire trade; indeed, I think there is a very real connection between the two. One of the difficulties we have got in competing with foreign markets in this country is that our home market is so very limited as compared with that of some of our trade rivals that we have great difficulty in the matter of price. Therefore, every time we can use the Empire to broaden our base of action, and so increase our output in districts which are showing a natural preference for our goods, we are enabling ourselves to fight our battles in foreign markets, because we are enabled to produce our goods at a lower rate. Therefore, there is no antithesis between foreign trade and Imperial trade, and I hope we shall not be accused of any desire to foster such a belief.
I spoke just now in reference to South America, of the trade we are doing with Brazil. Along with various other hon. Members of this House, I had the pleasure of partaking of the great hospitality of the Government of Brazil during last autumn. One of the things which most impressed me was the immense potential wealth of that country, and the feeling that we ought to get a little more trade out there. There is no doubt that in Brazil we have very great difficulties to face. I will not deal with them at the moment, but I will say that you have got there a country with a European civilisation, a great modern capital city, Rio de Janeiro, with all the up-to-date things you find in this country, with a go-ahead population, the sort of population that one would imagine would be putting
forward enormous demands for the sort of things we want to supply. In San Paulo they have a city which, I believe, is increasing at a greater rate than any other city in the modern world, not even excluding Chicago. It has got large, developing markets, and, in fact, there is in that country just the sort of thing which one would expect would produce a large increase in trade from this country as well as from other countries.
Looking at our present position in Brazil, and to the fact that we are merely holding our own, it impels me to a comparison with what is going on across the other side of the ocean. In our West African Colonies, a different story has to be told. There we have a district which has received European civilisation comparatively recently. There we have a country inhabited by a comparatively small number of white people, and mostly by natives, necessarily on account of the conditions which prevail, in the very primitive state of development. At the same time, we have got a district which is showing an enormous desire to trade with this country. In Nigeria, for example, in 1925, which is the most recent comparable figure I can get, out of a total of imports of something like £13,000,000, this country has provided over £10,000,000, and our nearest rival, Germany, £1,250,000. On the Gold Coast, out of a total of something like £8,750,000, this country produced £5,500,000, and the United States, our nearest rival, only just over £1,000,000. A very different story indeed! Moreover, not only is this great area willing to buy from us, but it seems to me it is one of the most suitable districts we could possibly select. West Africa and Central Africa, situated as they are more or less wholly in the tropical or sub-tropical belt, are producing the very type of things which cannot in any way come into competition with what we produce at home. They are, moreover, producing and will in future produce more and more raw materials which are so essential not only to the trade of this country but also, I believe, taking the long view, to the trade of the great Dominions as well.
We have not to look upon these Colonies, in my view, as merely an asset of Great Britain. They are assets of the Empire, and that is the point of view from which we have to look at them, so
everything we can do to develop them is going to help us and at the same time to help our Dominions, because they are taking, and will take, just the secondary manufactures which we wish to supply and at the same time will supply us with those primary products of which we are in such great need. Let me take as an example of the potentialities of this great State what has been done in the case of the Gold Coast. At the beginning of this century I suppose the Gold Coast was most known in this country as being inhabited by a race of very hardy warriors with whom we had not long concluded a war, and it was also known, if it was ever known for anything else, as being one of the white men's graves. It was a savage country. In it there were no roads, no railways, no telephones, there was no such thing as electric light, of course, and there was practically no such thing as telegraphs. Yet in the 28 years which have passed since then, such has been the development of that small country that, with something like 2,500,000 of population, to-day they have no less than 5,000 miles of roads, 500 miles of rail, and 400 miles of telephone and telegraph, and only next month a vast new harbour is to be opened by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), who, I believe, is starting next week. If that can be done in a small district like the Gold Coast, what can be done in the way of developing those vast areas over which we rule in Africa to-day?
Let me pause for a moment to ask this question. What has been the effect of this development on the native population of the districts? I have referred to the fact that our rule over these countries is of benefit to us, but it would be a sorry tale to tell if the benefit ceased there and if no account was taken of the native races who inhabit the country. There has been a spread through those districts of medical science, a spread of education, a spread of all the modern conveniences of life, and an undoubted raising of the standard of living amongst the natives with whom we have come in contact. If you go further into the country, not to the same extent, because civilisation has not been able to reach them, but where it has reached them we have seen the same thing. Hon. Members can picture for themselves the flourishing system of
education, the great new Africa college which has been set up, and the series of first-class medical institutions culminating in the largest tropical hospital in any part of the world. That is no mean achievement in a small country after 28 years, and it is a thing that may well give us hope for the future development of the British Empire. The material benefits to the Colony itself are very great. Our trade in 1926 was £20,000,000, and in 1927 it increased by £5,000,000 more.
If that can be done there, what can we do in other parts, and how can we set about it? By common consent the first thing that has to be done is to provide transport to the outlying districts—railways and roads. It will be of immense and immeasurable benefit to the Empire to press on with all the speed that conditions will allow—I do not say regardless of all the difficulties which we know are there; we can, of course, go too far, but let us press on with all the speed we can in opening up these great districts of Africa, even although—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not here, so I can say this with greater freedom—there may be no immediate prospect of a return for what we spend. I hope we shall see this development pressed, because it is the key to the whole situation. Unless we can provide people with transport to bring their goods down in this way, and give them cheaper methods than they have at present in many instances, there is no hope of the development, which I am certain can only be to the benefit of the whole Empire, which we so eagerly wish to see brought about. It is no exaggeration to say there is not a single trade—engineering, textile, shipbuilding, whatever it may be—which will not directly benefit by an increase of our prosperity in those countries. Also, when we have provided these facilities of roads and rail, we must not forget the ports.
A matter which has been raised many times in the House is that of shipping rates I am trenching on delicate ground, but it is no use providing ports if shipping freights are very high. I notice that at the meeting of the Niger Company the chairman complains of the high rates of freights charged to West Africa. I hope that question will receive the
earnest attention of the shipping authorities, because it is essential to the development of these Colonies that they should have cheap transport, not only on land, but also on the sea, when their goods are being shipped. After that, the next most important thing is unquestionably the policy of increased research. Any system of research must be linked up not only with this country, but with the Empire as a whole. We have seen already how difficulties that arise, say, in Kenya or in New Zealand, may be the same difficulties from which we are suffering elsewhere, and cures which may be found by tropical research in Kenya may not inconceivably be able to assist us in our agricultural troubles in the north country. So we have to look upon this, too, as an Imperial question, and it is from that point of view that I urge that we should be generous in our support of research in our oversea Colonies.
But at the end of the day, when the Government have done all they can, it still remains for the manufacturers of this country to play their part. One of the things that struck me most of all in my recent tour in South America—I have been struck by it in every part of the world I have been in—is the constant complaint that local conditions are not sufficiently considered by would-be exporters from this country. Take, for example, motor cars. I find that the people who are making ears do not really appreciate the sort of thing that is wanted in the Argentine or that is required for peculiar road conditions in Brazil. Let our manufacturers send out some strong representative body, or go themselves, and see the local conditions and see what is wanted. Then let them unite together so that they can join in one body, like the General Motor Company of America, and if necessary pool their forces and, above all things, let them do what the Americans have done so successfully, and before they start to sell their cars, make certain that when they are sold and are running there will be an ample supply of spare parts and other services that will be required. That is one of the secrets of the great success of American motor ears. Where-ever you go, all over the world, you have the American car with its spare parts and no delay. It is not so with British cars, and I urge our manufacturers to
follow the policy of the Americans in that respect, to go out and study the requirements themselves, and see that these necessary steps are taken in the great campaign which I hope they will launch before long, because it is no use our building roads for American motor cars to run on or railways for American locomotives. We have to look to our own market first and we have to look to our own manufacturers, whether of motor cars, cotton goods, or whatever it may be, to look after themselves and study the requirements of the localities themselves and take for themselves the full advantage of this opportunity. There is no doubt the opportunity is there. The fruit is ripe for the picking. If we do not take the opportunity our children will come to look upon us as the generation which let slip by, perhaps, the finest opportunity this country has ever had.

Captain EDEN: I beg to second the Motion.
I believe the House will approve the use to which my hon. Friend has put the opportunity which the fickle fortune of the ballot box has created for him. I feel also the House will approve of the wide terms in which he has drawn the Motion, because the opportunities that occur for Debates such as this are so rare that we are all the more grateful that he has not on this occasion detracted from the use to which the Debate may be put by confining us within precise or narrow limits. The House as a whole would agree as to the importance which Empire trade has, not only so far as our industries at home are concerned, but so far as the Colonies overseas are affected. Sometimes we hear Empire trade spoken of as though it were primarily, or even exclusively, our obligation in this country to do our utmost to develop it. It is not, of course, exclusively our obligation, because each part of the Empire shares equally in the benefits that result from the growth of that trade, and nothing is more significant about Empire trade to-day than the extent to which, if one part benefits other parts share in the improvement. In recent years it is true to say Empire trade has steadily progressed. Hon. Members from time to time have drawn attention to the trade figures for last year, and have commented, no doubt favourably, an the fact that those figures show an increase in our
exports as compared with 1925. If we make the necessary allowances for a change in value, that, I think, is perfectly true, but it is also' true to say that that increase in the value of our exports is largely, if not indeed exclusively, due to the fact that we have sent an increased proportion of manufactured goods to destinations within the British Empire.
It is not part of my purpose to weary the House with figures this afternoon, but there is one comparison, perhaps, that I may be allowed to make. It is this. If we compare the values of our export trade last year with 1925, we find that, whereas our exports to the Empire last year were valued at some £366,926,000, those exports in 1925 were valued at £330,743,000; in other words, an increase of our exports to the Empire of something like 11.1 per cent. On the other hand, our exports to foreign countries, which in 1927 totalled £429,609,000, in 1925 totalled only £442,631,000; in other words, a decrease of 2.9 per cent. I make that comparison, which I do not want to exaggerate, because I think that, though those figures are only an approximation, they do suggest that the increase in volume of exports in 1927 compared with 1925 is due entirely to a larger Empire trade, and that exports to foreign countries, if anything, show a slight decrease as compared with 1925. I think that that should be our excuse for this Debate this afternoon.
No doubt, in discussing these figures, I may be told that I am pushing at an open door. There is no one in this House who does not appreciate the important part which Empire trade must play in our economic life to-day. But, though we may appreciate the present, I am not always quite so certain that we visualise the part that trade may have to play in our economic life in future years. It is, perhaps, impossible for us now to visualise the extent to which future generations here and oversea may be dependent upon Empire trade, but I believe that those 'possibilities, greater perhaps than we to-day can visualise will be realised if only we to-day fulfil those immediate obligations which are our responsibility at the present time.
I am convinced at least of this, that by the development of Empire trade we can enable our Dominions to increase their
present rate of commercial progress, and thereby to increase the numbers which they are able to take as migrants year after year. Essentially migration is an economic problem, and it will only be solved by economic weapons. Equally, by such trade we can enable our Colonies to attain a development which will be more thoroughly in keeping with their great national wealth, and last, but by no means least, by such means we can enable this country at home to reach a standard of living very much higher than prevails to-day.
If we are agreed as to that, then by what means does it lie in the power of the Government and in the power of this House to further Imperial trade? Many methods are open to us. There is, first, the method of preferential tariffs. Of recent years the Dominions have given to us very valuable assistance by means of preferential tariffs. It is no part of my purpose to make any of Mrs. Malaprop's odoriferous comparisons. But certainly the preference, the new scale of tariffs which has been granted by New Zealand recently must prove of very great benefit to the. British manufacturer. We have received their assistance from the Dominions, and of recent years there has been some return by us—a return which has been of considerable service to some parts of the Empire.
I do not think anyone, for instance, can visit the Murray Valley in South Australia without perceiving at once the value which the preferences my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer granted to Empire wines and dried fruits in his Budget of 1925, I think, have been to the people of that district. Just now we are at a time when financial suggestions are allowed, and I would suggest to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs that he might, perhaps, pass the Chancellor of the Exchequer the hint that if he wants to further that Imperial trade, about which no one has been more eloquent than he on the platform, he may, perhaps, consider the possibility of extending to tinned fruits produced in the Empire that same measure of preference which he now grants to dried fruits. I believe that if he could do that he would be giving a considerable measure of assistance to the fruit producing countries both of South
Africa and of Australia and would enable them to compete even more successfully with competition from California. It is no part of my purpose this afternoon to discuss the good or ill of preferential tariffs. There are many parts of the Empire to-day which gain nothing from the preferences which we have already given, and the help which we can give is essentially limited to reduction of existing duties. It is impossible to put on any new duties, and I feel sure that this is fully appreciated in the Dominions.
But if we are compelled to rule out any consideration of extension of assistance in the matter of tariffs there remains the assistance which may be given by means of personal preference. In that work, I believe that the Empire Marketing Board is doing a service to-day far more valuable than some of us realise. It is creating just that atmosphere which will lead to a growth of personal preference by the consumer in this country. But that is by no means all. I do not believe the most valuable part of the work of the Empire Marketing Board is to be found in its display of posters, admirable though they may be. It has done even better work in the assistance which it has given to scientific research in recent years. I think it is quite true to say that but for that help which has been given through the Empire Marketing Board a great deal of the work which is now going on, and which is of vital importance to the future of Empire trade, would never have been started. It is true, I believe, that the United States of America, for instance, in 1925, spent more than twice as much on scientific, agricultural research alone as the whole of the British Empire put together. So that, though the Empire Marketing Board is doing very valuable work in that respect, there is still mach leeway to make up. I therefore very much hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, though we gladly contemplate him at work sometimes felling some old timber, will be careful to leave this young sapling scrupulously alone, because I am certain that the work the Empire Marketing Board is doing must in future be of great benefit to our trade. I need not enumerate its activities now. There is in existence an institution known as the Parasite Zoo. I do not know whether hon. Members know what a parasite zoo is. I am told that it is
an institution where a certain number of parasites are bred so that they may in due course be launched out to feed on other parasites and ensure that these do not disturb the harmony of more useful members of society.
In the work which the Empire Marketing Board is doing to-day we have, perhaps, the most effectual answer which we can make to the preferential tariffs which the Dominions gave to us. The fiscal tradition of this country, an antiquated tradition perhaps some of us may think, makes it impossible to give the tariff assistance that some of us would wish, and the reply of the Empire Marketing Board, we hope, will be of real service to the Dominions and to ourselves. It is important to note that the Empire Marketing Board has not forgotten our home industries here, It would be a very poor form of Imperial vision that neglected to look after its own domestic doorstep, and grants are being given, as we know, to the Minister of Agriculture to-day by the Board. We are told that shortly there is to be a campaign to induce the people of this country to consume liquid milk, the produce of our country, rather than dried milk imported from abroad. All that is to the good, and it is only right that the work of the Empire Marketing Board should begin first at home.
There is a special reason why, to-day, we should give careful consideration to this question of our Imperial trade. If we look across the ocean we see something very significant going on in the United States. Unless I am very much mistaken, the capacity of the United. States to absorb the products produced within their borders has just about reached saturation point. It would seem that the United States are now producing more than their people are able to absorb at the same rate as they have been doing in the past. If that be the case—and I believe it is the case—that produce will gradually be squeezed out and will go and compete with us in foreign and in Imperial markets. Consequently, we have to look for a very much keener competition from the United States in the next few years. At present the United States export, I believe, only 5 per cent of their total produce, so it is easy to picture what an increase of even I per cent would mean in competing
against our goods in various parts of the world. We cannot do very much directly, exclusively from the point of view of the development of Dominion trade, but we can do a good deal in the development of trade in the Colonies. My hon. Friend has referred to that and I will not enforce what he has said except as far as I can to remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it should be—it must be—a cardinal factor in the Conservative creed that we should do all that lies in our power to develop our Colonial resources. Otherwise to practise economy at the expense of our Colonies is to practise economy at the expense of employment in this country. We can ask, therefore, that the Government should pursue in that respect a very vigorous policy of Colonial development.
Sometimes, criticisms are brought by manufacturers in this country against what is called the growing habit of some of our Dominions to set up secondary industries and to manufacture for themselves. I think that it is natural that there should be some such criticism, especially when it means setting up tariffs which make it very difficult, or impossible, for our manufacturers to override them. But though that criticism is natural, I feel convinced it is unjustified, because after all it is only natural that a Dominion like Australia or New Zealand should wish to establish for itself a certain number of secondary industries. If I were an Australian I confess that personally that would be my desire. We can only leave it to them to discover in the long run how far it is possible to establish secondary industries at the expense of their primary industries. That is their task to discover. Nobody now believes, surely, that the Dominions will be content to absorb our manufactured goods and send us the products of their primary industries. To think so is to live in a fool's paradise. The Dominions are determined to go ahead with the development of their secondary industries. We are seeing it to-day, and we shall probably see it to an even greater extent in the coming years, but for my part I do not think that there is in that a cause for any undue anxiety. If a tariff wall is raised against one particular local manufacture in this country, the establishment of that industry in the
Dominions will in itself call for a greater flow of population from this country, and while that particular market may be lost to this country, or may be much less valuable, we shall gain in the wider consuming market caused by the larger population in the Dominion. In other words, what we lose on the swings we shall gain on the roundabouts. It is a mistake which is sometimes made by manufacturers in this country to be antagonistic when they find, suddenly, that a tariff barrier is set up against them in a Dominion. It is a natural aspiration which we there see at work.
It is certainly true to-day that we have a volume of goodwill in the shape of the desire of our Dominions to purchase the manufactured goods of this country. I do not think anyone will deny that. A visitor to New Zealand, recently, noticed a hoarding outside a station, on which there was an exhortation to buy the manufactured goods of this country. Out of curiosity he made inquiries as to why the hoarding had been erected, and he found that it had been done, at his own private expense, by a citizen of New Zealand who was benefiting from the fact that this country was his best market, and he wished in some way to return to us some of the benefit that he was receiving from our custom. I do not think anyone will deny that there is a great benefit to us from that desire on the part of the Dominions, other things being equal, to purchase the manufactured goods of this country; but we shall be making the greatest mistake if we trade on that preferential taste. The very fact that the taste exists makes it all the more important for us to ensure that we satisfy it, well and truly. The fact that the purchaser has gone to the trouble to ensure that what he or she is buying is of British origin and the fact that they have taken such an interest in the purchase will make the disappointment all the keener if the results are not up to expectation.
Although we have this great asset of goodwill, unless we go out and look after it the asset may turn into a liability. It is very important, and my hon. Friend in introducing the Motion was right in urging it, that the manufacturers of this country should not rest content by sending out agents but that they should go
out themselves, see for themselves, and judge for themselves. Unless they do that, we can trust to our American competitors doing it, and then the loss of trade that will ensue to us will be entirely our fault and our responsibility. I lay stress upon this matter because nothing is more important to the development of Imperial trade than personal contact. It is only by such contact that our manufacturers will get to know precisely what are the needs and necessities in one or other of our Dominions. It is not true to say that those needs are the same as the needs at home. They are not. It is true that the race is the same, but the changes of climate and conditions have modified tastes, with the result that the Dominions now have demands which differ in certain fundamentals from our own. It is only by going out and seeing for ourselves what those needs are that we shall be able to ensure that there is no disappointment in the purchase by the Dominions of our manufactured goods.
"Directors Down Under" would not be a bad slogan for those of our manufacturers who have trade associations with Australia and New Zealand. It used to be said that trade follows the flag. That may be true in some of our Colonies. The truth is that trade follows a knowledge of needs and conditions in our Dominions. It is of the utmost importance that we should bear that in mind. A great many years ago, a King in this country described more effectively than I can what must be our trading relations with our Overseas Dominions. He said that our object must be:
To seek such things as we lacke and carry out to them such things as they lacke so that thereby not only commodities may ensue both to them and us but also an indissoluble and perpetual league of friendship.
We cannot lay too great an emphasis upon the part which Empire trade has to play in the future of this country and in the future of our Colonies and Dominions overseas and it is because I believe that this Government, and future Governments, will allow no opportunity to slip by for the promotion of that trade, that I warmly endorse the Motion, and I trust that the House as a whole will see its way unanimously to approve it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The House is indebted to the two bon Members for the excellent speeches which they have delivered.
I feel particularly indebted to the Mover of the Motion for the statement of facts which will be very valuable to us, and I am no less indebted to the Seconder for the information which I received from him. While I am indebted to them for those facts, I cannot see my way to give support to the policy which they advocate. The Mover of the Resolution invited us, in a very persuasive way, to spend State money on unprofitable work and to leave the profits to accrue to the private enterprise that would follow. He said that at the end of the day when the State has done its part the manufacturers should come in. I should have thought that the manufacturers who are to have the benefits at the close of the day might be expected to make some small contribution at the beginning of the enterprise.
I was rather confused by one or two statements which were made. For instance, both speakers emphasised the importance of the manufacturers themselves going abroad to study conditions, instead of trusting to their agents and managers. Who in the great industries to-day are the manufacturers? The manufacturers are thousands of shareholders. The business is not conducted by private employers as in the old days but by managers who are paid more or less large salaries for carrying out the work on behalf of the numerous shareholders. There is one point which I should like to clear up before I examine the terms of the Motion. Both hon. Members spoke as if Great Britain and the British Empire were separate entities. Am I not safe in assuming that Great Britain is in the British Empire?

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I thought I had made it plain that in considering British trade, Great Britain was an essential part of the British Empire.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am pleased to have that information, because it enables me to examine the Motion without any misunderstanding. May I also draw attention to the terrible disaster that seems to overshadow the mind of the Seconder of the Motion. He referred to the dreadful consequences of America having surplus goods. He said that we had reached a period when America, with its enormous powers of production, will put goods on to the market at a rate greater
than the American population can consume them, and then he says those surplus goods will be sent to our Dominions and Colonies and even into Great Britain, to compete successfully with our manufactures. That, undoubtedly, he pointed out, will be followed by unemployment, and unemployment in turn will be followed by starvation, and the world will be faced with the dreadful situation of starving in the midst of plenty. I have more faith in the intelligence of mankind than seems to be held by the hon. and gallant Member. I believe that before any nation allows itself to be starved by surplus goods it will alter the system which makes that possible, and will give us a system which will distribute goods as rapidly as they can be produced.
Is it not remarkable that the people who come to this House, week after week, seeking State aid for industry, are the very people who tell us that industry can be left safely in the hands of private enterprise. We are told hero, night after night, that industry needs State aid to put it on to its feet, and when anything in the nature of a Socialist proposal comes from this side we are told that the State should mind its own business and allow industry to be left to the people who control it to-day. I would remind the House that competitive capitalism has now reached a stage at which it can do considerable damage to industry, and no good. It is quite clear from the two speeches which we have heard to-day, and similar propaganda, that they now regard the special function of private enterprise to be to grab all the profit on the goods produced by State assistance. Nothing big in the way of promoting and developing industry has been done by private enterprise. Both sneakers reminded the House of that. They tell us that all scientific research should be done to-day by the State, and they might have added that to-day that research is being done by the State.
Private enterprise is doing nothing to assist in research work. [HON. MEMBEES: "Oh!"] Private enterprise is depending very largely upon the £1,000,000 in the hands of the Empire Marketing Board for its assistance in the promotion of industry, and the land on which it makes its experiments is privately owned. The State which has to pay for this scientific research has not
even in its possession a sufficient amount of land to enable it to get on with its work, and has actually to pay ground rent to private enterprise for leave to carry on work which it does on behalf of industry. I will give an instance. Take the ease of the malnutrition of soil, which is one of the principal questions with which the country has to deal to-day. An enormous amount of expenditure has been indulged in, and when the results accrue, who will get the benefit? Imperial Chemicals Limited. Imperial Chemicals Limited is not a State enterprise but a private enterprise. Again, the State will be incurring an expenditure and private profit makers will get off with the results.
5.0 p.m.
Let me give another instance, which comes very near the speeches of the two hon. Members. It is a well-known fact that 20 per cent. of the fruit grown in our tropical regions to-day is destroyed by insects. Private enterprise can do nothing to stop that waste, and if ever it is to be stopped it will be stopped by the defenders of private enterprise coming to this House and asking for public money to enable them to save the fruits of their industry. Private enterprise is not the friend of industry or of Empire trade. Private enterprise is the enemy of Empire trade. We have an Empire Marketing Board. I think the title is a misnomer, because it does no marketing at all. It spends its time in watching and exposing private enterprise in its handling of Empire goods, and instead of being called Empire Marketing it should be called Empire robbery. Let me give two instances from the reports which have been issued by the Imperial Economic Committee. In their Report on the fruit trade they say that Colombia apples are being sold in this country at 8d. per lb. and that the amount which the actual grower gets for producing these apples is less than ½d. per lb. It is ½d. for the producer of the apples and 8d. a lb. to the British consumers, in many cases it is as high as 10d. per lb. They also give another instance which is well worthy of attention. They tell us how Australian and New Zealand butter is dealt with, and we get a clear exposition of the damage that is done to Empire trade by private enterprise, which is so eloquently defended by
hon. Members opposite. From June every year onwards till November they say that there is a fall in the supplies of butter from Australia and New Zealand, and that during the period of the fall the prices of butter steadily rise. Then, says the Report:
A curious thing takes place about the month of November, or thereabouts. The Southern supplies, the fresh supplies, are on their way and the amount is known generally.
One would expect that the party opposite would use their influence with the wholesale traders who control the butter trade to reduce the price of Empire butter now that there was no danger of a shortage, but what happens, according to the Report, is that prices continue to rise until the Christmas trade is over. The British Christmas consumer is exploited in the price of butter while large supplies are on the seas on the way to Britain.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is not the right hon. Member referring to co-operative society prices?

Mr. WHEATLEY: No I am referring to the wholesale prices fixed by private traders in London. The report points out that immediately the Christmas trade is over and we are on the eve of getting the Australian and New Zealand butter there is a sudden crash in prices, which fall considerably below the level at Christmas, and the object is to enable private enterprise to purchase Australian and New Zealand butter at much less than it would have had to pay if the prices had remained high. There you have an organisation in Britain actually existing for the purpose of damaging Empire trade, and here we have friends of these organisations coming to this House and asking us to pass pious resolutions in support of the development of Empire trade. Is it any wonder that all over Canada you have farms which have been broken up and deserted by the people who attempted to emigrate and work them, poor people who put their money into these farms. The business people who dealt with the product of their labour have crushed them and left them without the means of earning a livelihood; they have driven them into the cities for an existence. I am glad that I had the admission from the other side that Britain is within the British Empire.
We do not hear much from hon. Members opposite about the development of trade between Manchester and Glasgow or between England and Scotland. Nor have I heard a word of any move to develop trade between Britain and Ireland. I want to remind hon. Members opposite that there is a potential market for goods in the East End of Glasgow which could be considerably developed. In the East End of London, as well, I have heard that Poplar is so rich that there is very little room for development there, but I can speak from a knowledge of the locality I represent, and I assure hon. Members opposite that with a little exertion and expenditure they could develop a splendid market in the East End of Glasgow. If these thousands of people were put in a position to enable them to wear more clothes in weather like this, it would be of considerable assistance to Lancashire and Yorkshire. If they could wear more boots, Northampton, of course, would immediately benefit, and if these people were given a higher standard of housing accommodation the whole building industry of this country would be in a prosperous position. It is for this reason that I ask hon. Members opposite to remember that Great Britain is in the Empire, and I am hopeful now that they are displaying such a keen interest in Empire trade that they will help us to develop the trade between our own villages and towns and cities. Our people, of course, cannot buy the goods they might buy because they have not sufficient purchasing power.
They are in this curious position; they cannot buy because trade is bad, and trade is bad because they cannot buy. There is a tangle which I submit to hon. Members opposite. They often tell us that Labour is incapable of solving these knotty problems. I present them with this problem, and I ask them to deal with it here, where they have infinitely more influence than in Canada or Australia or New Zealand. It is no use passing these Resolutions and telling the Glasgow people that they ought to eat more fruit and wear more diamonds, because they cannot eat more fruit or wear more jewellery unless you give them more money with which to purchase these goods. I submit this suggestion to hon. Members opposite who have the power, I wish they had the knowledge, to give
us a real Empire policy. I submit that instead of passing pious Resolutions of this kind they ought to take immediate steps to set up an Imperial industrial parliament which would be representative of the Governments of the Empire, which would, as far as human beings can he disinterested in economic questions, give us disinterested views and a disinterested policy on this Empire trade proposal.
Such a parliament or a board would at any rate give us the foundations of an economic Empire and devise schemes of mutual aid. You have no economic Empire to-day. As I have pointed out previously, you may have a German in New Zealand trading with a Dutchman in London, and you call it Empire trade! You have no trade between New Zealand and Australia and Britain. Britain does no trade. The people in Britain trade. The Colonies do no trade. The people in the Colonies do trade. If you want to develop you Empire you must knit it more closely together, and the proper way to do that is not by launching out money in the way we are doing here, leaving the results of our expenditure to whoever happens to be speculating in that particular enterprise, but for the Governments themselves to make a beginning and establish a central hoard, or an industrial parliament, and give us the beginnings of something which will be of real substance, which will protect. the trade of Britain and the trade of the Empire from the speculators who are ruining it by their depredations to-day.

Captain CUNNINGHAM REID: I do not intend to follow the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down because consider that his arguments rather answer themselves. Having just returned from a somewhat extensive tour of the Empire, I find it all the more perplexing to understand why so many of our supposed authorities on trade and economics have paid so little attention during the last few years to Empire markets, especially when one bears in mind that these markets have proved of late the only bright spot in our otherwise somewhat gloomy trade returns. I also find it a little strange that so few people appear to realise that, if it were not for our Dominions and Colonies, the workers of this country would be far worse off than some of them may consider
themselves to be to-day. I believe that this can largely be accounted for by mental habit. We have in the past been so used to having the markets of the world to choose from that it comes somewhat as a shock to us to realise that this is no longer the case, and that our markets, present and future, are to be found in quite different channels. I maintain that enough time has already been lost in bemoaning the loss of some of our old markets and that our time would be better occupied in concentrating upon some of the obvious new ones. I do not intend to tax the patience of the House with giving a number of figures on Empire trade, which I expect many hon. Members have at their fingertips. Suffice it to say that during the last few years our trade to foreign countries has steadily diminished, whilst our trade to British Possessions has steadily increased. This fact more than speaks for itself and goes to show that we are only on the fringe of the possibilities of Empire trade.
Further, if we were prepared as a nation to concentrate on this subject to the exclusion of many others, not only would it be to our advantage but what is more it might prove the speediest if not the only solution to many of the more formidable difficulties which confront this country at the moment. I expect that some hon. Members will say, "Well, if this solution is waiting at our doors to be picked up, why has it not been done before?" The answer to that is this, that though of late far more interest has been taken in the Empire than ever before, nevertheless, progress has been retarded because in equal proportions both cash and enterprise have been lacking. As far as cash is concerned, this country has been in that condition ever since the War, and for that matter during the War. But during the War we got over our troubles by means of War Loans.
I suggest that an Empire Loan would be quite as feasible and very nearly as necessary. As to lack of enterprise, that is a British innovation. A short time ago I had the pleasure of being in Australia. I can assure the House that in that country there is not very much love lost for the United States of America. Arriving there as a visitor and knowing this. I was somewhat surprised
to find that in the cities there was a distinct American atmosphere and influence. I very soon discovered that the reason for this was a predominance of American goods in that country, and not only that, but the close proximity of the United States as compared with this country. The majority of Australians would a thousand times rather buy British goods than any others. At the moment, they only purchase American products faute de micux. They cannot understand why the British producers do not, show as much initiative as the American producers are doing.
I shall not weary the House with a number of examples, but I shall content myself with giving one glaring example. I refer to the motor industry in Australia. I think that our manufacturers here are wasting a good deal of time in congratulating each other whenever their exports to Australia show a slight increase over previous years. I maintain that they are living in a fools' paradise. I will put the position in a nutshell. In 1927 this country, together with the United States, exported to Australia the equivalent of £10,000,000 worth of motor ears. Of that total the British share was less than one quarter. When one considers that Australia is one of our own Dominions, it seems a somewhat strange state of affairs. I am told on the best authority that unless something is done fairly soon, this British percentage will diminish to very nearly nil. There is only one solution, and it has already been stated as far as the case for South America is concerned. It is this—that the more prominent British manufacturers in this country must get together and to some extent pool their resources and combine for mass production on a large scale, and mass production of a product that will be suitable for Australian conditions and not a product with one eye on the British market which entails necessary limitations because of our horse-power tax.
The hon. Member for Coventry (Sir A. Boyd-Carpenter). whom I am sorry not to see in his place, and leading representatives of the motor industry, together with Mr. Morris of Morris car fame, visited Australia only a short time ago. But I am led to understand that the big idea has yet to be grasped, because no individual firm in this country is at the
moment prepared to enter into such an enterprise by itself, and on the other hand, no group of firms is prepared to sink some of their identity and to join forces in order to cope with the situation. This is a serious matter. Unless this country can stake out its claim very soon in that market, I am afraid that we are likely to lose it altogether. I make that statement for a special reason, because when I was in Australia I had it on the best and highest Australian authority that at this very moment an American motor concern of gigantic proportions, the name of which is familiar to every hon. Member, is contemplating the formation of a, company in Australia of many million pounds. A small and carefully disguised percentage of the capital issue is to be allotted to Australia. That is to give it an Australian flavour, and the delusion is completed by the intention to call the company by an Australian name, such as the Australian Motor Company or Australian Motors.
This particular combine intends, should it get the opportunity, to open factories in Australia, where only the bodies and minor chassis parts will be manufactured. That is, of course, to overcome the duties that are imposed in Australia on incoming bodies and assembled chassis. The main chassis parts are, as usual, to be manufactured in the United States. It is apparent that once such a combine gains a footing in Australia it will monopolise the motor industry of that country, and the British manufacturer then will not stand a chance, if only for the fact that he will be up against a product that is not only cheap but is suitable for Australian conditions, British manufacturers will be handicapped also because to all intents and purposes the enterprise would be an Australian concern employing Australian labour. The facts that I have placed before the House are to the best of my knowledge indisputable. I hope. that they will come to the ear of the motor manufacturers in this country and that they will give serious attention to the question, as I am convinced that if they did it would be to their advantage. There are one or two other questions relative to the Empire that I should like to lay before the House, but to-day time is limited. Therefore I will hope for an opportunity on some other occasion.

Captain GARRO-JONES: The House will have been greatly interested in the remarks which the hon. and gallant Member for Warrington (Captain Cunningham Reid) has just made about the motor trade in Australia. Everyone who knows anything about that trade must be aware that, owing to many handicaps that have been imposed on the British motor industry, we are finding it extremely difficult in every part of the world to compete with foreign motor-car manufacturers. Some of those handicaps are beyond the control of British manufacturers; others are within their control. I have just had the pleasure of a visit to some of the West African Colonies, where we were able to observe some factors in motor salesmanship which are undoubtedly within the control of the motor manufacturer and which should receive his attention. There was, for example, the case of the vice-president of the General Motors Company of the United States, a company which last year made a profit, I believe, of 47,000,000 dollars. The vice-president of that vast corporation was spending a long time in touring the West African Colonies, with all the discomforts attendant upon travelling in those regions, in order to make an assessment of present and future demands for motor cars and the characteristics required in cars to serve those particular regions.
I do not wish to make any complaint or criticism of the ability of those who are attempting to sell British cars there, but certainly we never found any of the directors or leading engineers or salesmen of the British motor-car companies there. The people that we have there are on very small salaries, with comparatively limited experience, and they find themselves in competition with the best brains that the United States can send over to study that particular market. I sincerely hope that before the motor-car manufacturers of Britain come to us and ask for tariffs to be imposed in these Colonies, they will put themselves in court by eliminating such adverse factors as are avoidable.
I had not intended to deal with that point. I rose primarily to ask whether it would be possible for the Under-Secretary to give us some information about the Crown Agents for the Colonies. They are closely associated with the
trade of the various Colonies. They handle enormous sums every year. I believe that as much as £100,000,000 is turned over by the Crown Agents for the Colonies every year. Any interested inquirer finds it extremely difficult to get information as to the administration of the Crown Agents. I have spent a considerable time in trying to get hold of the accounts for recent years. The latest I have been able to get hold of were dated 1919, and there I found many interesting items which I am sure would prompt a spirit of inquiry in any hon. Member who perused them. I am not going to deal at length with the Crown Agents, except to say that they make charges for such things as inspection of goods sent to the Colonies. In investigating the cost of house building in one of our Colonies, I came across an item of £38 paid to the Crown Agents, over and above all shipping and other charges, for inspecting a small consignment of 100 tons or so of corrugated iron sheets. On going further into that, I found that they acted as agents for the shipment of all these materials and put these extraordinary charges upon the Colonies that buy these goods.
I know that this House is not called upon to defray any of the expenses of the agents. They are appointed by the Secretary of State and their salaries come from the commissions which they are able to charge. At the same time, I think it is due to the Colonies to see that the placing of these contracts and the allotting and placing of the loans which the Colonies raise in this country, are conducted on the most efficient possible basis. I want to hear the rules which govern the administration of the Crown agents, and whether the Colonial Office is satisfied that this is the best system. We had one or two examples recently which were very disturbing. We heard in the report of the two hon. Members who visited British Guiana that when that Colony wanted to place a loan in this country, the Crown agents introduced to them a financial agent who was willing to place the loan at a certain figure. Some other financial house heard of this, and they sent out a rival financier who placed the loan for them £2 cheaper—I think the figures were 96 and 98 respectively. There have been similar cases, and there was a Commission of
Inquiry many years ago, but, although they found that all was not well from the point of view of efficiency, nothing has been done. Perhaps hon. Members who have a knowledge of these subjects will go into this matter in order to see if something cannot be done to improve the system.
It will be agreed that, as regards Empire trade in general, there is room for improvement. In spite of the strenuous efforts which are undoubtedly being made both in the Colonial Office and in the Colonies, we find that in many of our Colonies, the proportion of British goods bought in relation to the total trade, is growing less. Foreign countries are penetrating our Colonial markets year by year, and the total extent of that penetration is not always realised. In Nigeria, for example, goods going into the country for Customs purposes have only to be marked with the name of the country of consignment, though in most places the name of the country of origin is required. Thus, in considering the very bright and promising figures given by the Mover of the Motion, we must bear in mind that he is giving a total of goods consigned from Great Britain as though Britain was the country of origin of all those goods. Hon. Members will readily recognise that large quantities of foreign cotton goods, for example, come into England and are re-exported. Those goods, in the case I have just mentioned, would be marked only with the country of consignment, namely, the United Kingdom. That lulls us into a false sense that all is well. Most of the Colonies demand that the name of the country of origin should be on the goods coming into their ports, and I think that system should be extended to every Colony. Then, at any rate, we should know the facts of the situation.
As far as the Dominions are concerned, I do not think we have reason to feel happy about the position. If we look at the figures of population in South Africa, Canada and New Zealand, we find that in some cases, they are stationary, and that Empire migration appears to be practically at a standstill. The same remark applies to agricultural and mineral development in many parts of the Empire. Is everything possible being done in regard to mineral development? In many parts of the world great
strides are being made in the development of mineral resources. Are British capitalists and financiers getting, for the benefit of this country, their proper share of such business? In the case of Canada we all know that American capital is proving a powerful factor. It is not only a question of capital. All the latest scientific methods of prospecting, such as the geo-physical, gravitational and magnetic systems of discovering minerals, are being employed to a far greater extent by foreign prospecting corporations than by British prospecting corporations. I wonder if the Department of Scientific Research and the Colonial Office and the Dominion Governments are all fully alive to this rapid scientific development, and whether everything possible is being done to see that British capitalists take their part in that development.
There is another feature of the problem which I would bring to the notice of the Colonial Office, and that is the question of air surveys. Every one knows that the swiftest, surest arid most excellent method of making a topographical survey is the aerial method. Admittedly, it requires large initial expense, and for that reason has been discouraged by many Colonies. We find, however, that in many parts of the world French and German air survey companies are getting contracts to make aerial surveys of large tracts of territory. Is everything possible being done to help British companies who have reached the latest developments in air surveying? I should also like to point out that the large initial expense involved in conducting these operations is likely to have a misleading effect, because the information which can be derived from these air photographs is not only of topographical value but is also of the utmost value as regards minerals and forestry. Each of our Colonies carries a very large staff in connection with the topographical survey, a very large staff for forestry work and also a large staff—though not as large as it might be—for the mineral survey. If we could eliminate these three services by means of an air survey, then the total increase of cost would not be sufficient to outweigh the advantage of the thoroughness, accuracy, and immediate value of an air survey of all the Colonies. I am not asking the Government
to provide money for this purpose. I realise that it would be hopeless to do so, but I ask if it is not possible to press on the Colonies the question of whether they cannot conduct aerial surveys on a larger scale than they have done in the past.
On the question of industrial development, we find that since the War the Dominions have shown an increasing tendency to develop their own industrial resources. That tendency has received a rather doubtful welcome from manufacturers in this country. It has been laid down as a kind of unwritten principle that the function of the Dominions and Colonies is to produce raw materials, and that the function of the home population is to produce manufactured articles. I ask if that is a sound principle. I do not myself feel capable of making any definite recommendations and I doubt whether any individual could feel competent to express a definite opinion upon so large a question involving so many formidable factors. But in many parts of the world we are losing those markets for manufactured goods, and, undoubtedly, those markets could have been retained, had we not shown an attitude of discouragement towards industrial development in the Dominions and Colonies. For example, in the Colonies there are many places where cheap cotton goods could be manufactured and exported to markets which have been lost, as far as we can see irretrievably, to the British manufacturer. I hope that in the framing of any principle as to the industrial development of the Dominions and Colonies that aspect of the question will be considered.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has just returned from a prolonged tour, but I hope he does not feel that he is putting off his harness. His task is of great magnitude. I should be the last to offer any criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, but I feel that unless something very drastic is done to develop the Empire on broader and bolder lines the time may come—perhaps in 20 years, which will very soon pass—when the other industrially developed parts of the world will say that the British Empire has not only ceased to be a great force for human progress, but that it is holding up the world. These vast spaces in Australia and Canada cannot be left indefinitely to lie fallow, and, for all that
is being done to migrate population from England, they are being left to lie fallow. Development, looked at from the higher point of view, is proceeding far too slowly. I know the difficulties are great, but I hope something will be done on bigger lines to protect us from the charge which is already being murmured in many parts of the world that the British Empire is not progressing as fast as it ought to progress in the interests of human development.

Major STRANG STEEL: Those of us on this side of the House who are interested in this question are delighted to have the opportunity of this Debate. During the last century a large number of people in this country looked upon our overseas Empire as more of an incumbrance than an advantage to us, and, there is no doubt, that in connection with it, we were involved in a number of small wars which cost us a great deal in lives and money. The cost of defence was high and the trade which we did at that time was small; but, looking back on the history of the development of our Empire, one is struck by the fact that many of our statesmen during the last century took a rather narrow view. They had very little vision. They looked at the position immediately in front of them and did not realise the enormous importance of the development of these resources, and the great assets which they would eventually become. During the War, perhaps for the first time, we realised how dependent we were on the loyalty of our Dominions overseas, and every day Britain and our Dominions become more and more dependent, the one upon the other.
We are all delighted to see that Empire trade is increasing. That increase is due to the very great preferences which the Dominions give to us in their markets; it is due to the British origin of their stock; it is due to their high standard of living and consequent high purchasing power. In the year 1924 Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, with a total population of only about 22,000,000, bought more manufactured goods and more products from us than the 204,000,000 people who live in those great countries, the United States, Italy, France and the Argentine. It is very significant that 22,000,000 of our own kith
and kin in our Empire overseas should buy more goods from us than 204,000,000 foreigners. It is not only these figures that are important, but the value to us of the trade that we do with our Dominions, which is far greater than that of a similar amount of trade with a foreign country, because the vast bulk of the goods that our Dominions buy are in the nature of wholly manufactured goods, representing the maximum of employment and wages for our people here, whereas only a moderate amount of the goods that foreign countries buy is in the nature of wholly manufactured goods. In that same year the average of wholly manufactured goods which our Dominions bought was in the neighbourhood of 90 per cent., while the average of such goods bought by foreign countries was only a little over 40 per cent. Therefore, the trade with our Dominions is of infinitely more value to us, because it represents more employment for our people here.
We are unlike any other country in the world. The United States, for instance, is practically a self-supporting nation. There is no part of the British Empire which is self-supporting, but, on the other hand, the whole Empire is entirely self-supporting, and there is nothing, so far as I know, which is manufactured in the whole world, there is no crop which is grown in any part of the world, which cannot be either made or grown in one or other of the many parts of this great Empire. Therefore, it seems to me that our whole policy in the future should be devoted to trying to produce and grow our many requirements. In promoting Imperial trade the Imperial Economic Committee is doing a splendid work, and I think the advantages of the Empire Marketing Board are only now being realised by the public as a whole. We are all delighted to see that the Empire Marketing Board's activities are devoted, not merely to encouraging trade from our Dominions and Crown Colonies, but very largely to encouraging the purchase of home-grown produce. At the very top of the Report of that board, in red ink and inverted commas, they state that "Empire buying begins at home," and in the very first paragraph they tell us that their whole object is to try and induce the British public, where price and quality are satisfactory, to buy, in the first place, home-grown produce from our own
farmers here, and, in the second place, to buy the produce from our farmers in the Empire overseas in preference to buying from foreign countries.
I am one of those who are pinning their faith to the work of the Empire Marketing Board to try and solve our agricultural problems in this country. I believe that these demonstrations which have been carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture under the ægis of the Empire Marketing Board and with the aid of their grants—demonstrations in packing, grading and marketing— are going to have a big effect, because there is no doubt that we are a great deal behind foreign countries in all these matters. I believe that foreign countries have captured a large part of our markets because they have been so much better skilled and organised in the grading, selling and marketing of their produce than we have been. What we require in this country is standardisation of an article that is required by the public; and once we have standardised an article to the required type, we want to ensure regular supplies. It is lack of standardisation and of regular supplies which to-day prevents first-class British produce from getting the price which it otherwise would get. I believe that these demonstrations which are being carried out by the Empire Marketing Board are having a great effect, and I was very pleased to read in one of our leading agricultural papers a week or two ago that they admit that there is a ready demand in this country for home-grown and Empire produce, provided it is well graded, carefully packed, and put upon the market in an attractive form. As a result of these demonstrations, I trust we shall educate our farmers in this country to the necessity for doing this.
Again, they are carrying out a great work in Scotland by granting money for investigations into milk and the manufacture of milk by-products. These experiments are going to show that milk is a very valuable food, especially for children, and they are affording a great deal of information for the "Drink more milk" campaign, which has already been started in many of the cities of Scotland. That campaign will have a double effect. In the first place, it will improve the health of the children in our great cities, and it will also have the effect of increasing
the demand upon dairy farmers in the South West of Scotland, and I believe that as a result we shall find an increased demand for milk in the future. Then there is the question of milk by-products. It is a striking fact that although we have this large amount of surplus milk in the summer months, over 50 per cent. of the milk products which are used in this country come from overseas. Surely the vast bulk of these milk products could be made in this country, thereby finding an outlet for all the surplus summer milk. As a result of these grants and investigations, I believe we are going to do a very great deal to help agriculture at home. The reports of the Imperial Economic Committee are proving most valuable. They are furnishing a great deal of data and information with regard to our various trades, and certainly we cannot hope to improve our trade and compete successfully against the foreigner unless we have all this data and information as to where it is coming from.
I was reading the other day the Imperial Economic Committee's Report on fruit, which is a most interesting document, and one learns from it that this country is becoming every year a larger fruit-eating country. During the last 20 years our imports of fruit have been increasing at almost three times the rate of our imports of bread stuffs and at almost double the rate of those of meat, but while we are importing nearly £49,000,000 worth of fruit in the course of a year, three-quarters of it comes from foreign sources and only about one-quarter from Empire sources. The Committee go on to say that, providing we can organise and improve our marketing, at no distant date the vast quantity of fruit which at present comes from foreign sources might well come from within the Empire. Everybody who has read the Report realises how much we are at the mercy, in this connection, of foreign countries.
If you take the three principal fruits, namely, apples, oranges, and bananas, the average man in this country eats in a year 100 apples, 70 oranges, and 30 bananas, but of the 100 apples, only 25 of them are produced in this country, so that there is any amount of scope for our fruit growers here. For the rest, 19 of them come from Canada and eight from
Australia and New Zealand, but 38 of them come from America. Thus we, in this country, are entirely dependent on the margin, or what is called the overspill, which comes every year from America. It is very difficult to see how we are going to compete with that American overspill without a duty, but certainly there is one way in which we can compete with it, and that is by improved methods of cold storage. You can eliminate all the waste that there is, not only in the fruit grown here, but in the fruit which comes to this country from Empire sources in ships, and I am sure that the money which is being spent by the Empire Marketing Board in research will prove to be of great value.
The grant for the low temperature research station at Cambridge, which is going into the question of research into cold storage, and the grant which is being given to the East Mailing research station in Kent, which is going into the question of research on a semi-commercial basis, will, I am sure, enable us to reap great advantages in the future. As a result, I hope it will be possible for our farmers, whose crop is reaped in the autumn, during October and November, and who very often find that in those months the market here is glutted and the price very poor, to put their apples and other fruit into cold storage, keep it throughout the winter, and sell it in the spring, when the price again begins to rise. It is all to the good that in this research work we are joining with our Dominions and Colonies and doing it upon a co-operative basis, and that all the information which we derive from research should be pooled and made known in every part of the Empire.
6.0 p.m.
The first Imperial Agricultural Research Conference was held last autumn, and it was a great success. We are pleased to know that this Agricultural Research Conference is to be held at regular intervals in different parts of the Empire. I believe that the next one is to be held in Australia. It is by methods of research and by improved markets that we are not only going to help our own farmers in this country in the sale of their produce, but we are going to help our Empire producers to sell their produce in our market against the very fierce competition of foreign countries.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: The hon. and gallant Member for Ashford (Major Steel) who has just spoken has succeeded in reconciling two opposing interests in his heart. He was anxious to do all he could to encourage the home agriculturist and to help to add to the importation of Dominion agricultural produce. He will find it very difficult to pursue the two policies at the same time. We have listened to what was supposed to be the initiation of a vigorous policy, and I have asked myself several times: Where is the vigour of the Tory party? Is this a sample of Tory vigour? I congratulate the Mover of the Motion on his modest interpretation of Tory Imperialism, but those who indulge in flag-wagging will be a little ashamed of the way the subject has been treated to-day. We are glad on this side of the House to recognise that there are Tory Members who can still believe in Imperialism, and talk about the Empire in a rational and courteous manner. The hon. Member, however, did not do justice to himself, because the subject is not as simple as it appears. Brought up in the good old Tory tradition, one is supposed to believe these things, and when called upon to make a speech, the most intelligent Tory has a difficulty in making a convincing case. The Mover and the Seconder of the Motion failed to convince anybody on this side of the House that their policy was acceptable. The hon. Gentleman who moved began by saying that in this country we have a million more employed than before the War. That is a thing of which we are proud, but he might have stressed more fully that we have had a million and a half people unemployed on the average during the last eight years, under Tory and Tory-Liberal Coalition Governments. The responsibility must come back to the Government. Our Tory friends must recognise that, if the Government are now to embark on a policy which will give more employment, the Government are to be blamed if their previous policy has not given employment. The hon. Member, after dealing lightly with these matters, went away at once to a country in America he had recently visited, namely, Brazil.

Mr. BARCLAY-HARVEY: What I pointed out was that it was a country where we ought to have markets. We are not getting as much trade as we ought to there.

Mr. GRENFELL: I do not want to do the hon. Member an injustice. He said that we are not getting as much trade as we ought to in Brazil. There is some reason for that. Then he skimmed away across the South Atlantic to the one solitary instance in the British Empire with which he dealt, namely, the Gold Coast Colony. He found that the Gold Coast was an example of the wonderful beneficence of imperialism and Imperial development. It was the most advantageous example which he could choose. He told us that in that Colony there is a trade with this country of £8,750,000, and that only £1,000,000 worth of trade was done with the United States. We have been able to compete successfully with the United States in the Gold Coast. He said that in the Gold Coast Colony there are 5,000 miles of railway, and that the rolling stock and materials were almost all made in this country. He also said that there were 500 miles of road and 500 miles of telegraph and telephone wires, the materials for which we had supplied. But that is not trade; that is an advance of credit from this country, and the people who get their railway and road material and telephone and telegraph systems from us must trade with us, because we hold them in pawn. If we rely upon such petty instances of trade development to help employment in this country, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House will be disappointed when they consult the country on such a policy. The hon. Member did not help us at all, with all his good will, and with all his belief in the British Empire. There was not a word about Australia or Canada, countries with immense potentialities, but bristling with difficulties.
Although the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion must have given years of study to this question, they did not give a single helpful suggestion. I am one who believes in the Empire. I worked in Canada 25 years ago as a coalminer, and I became proud of our connection with the Canadian people. The population of that great Dominion was 8,000,000, and I realised when I was there that there could easily be a population of from 40,000,000 to 50,000,000, which could enjoy the highest standard of life. People, however, pour across the border into the United States; that process has been going on for 25 years, and there
are hardly 10 per cent. more people in Canada now than there were 25 years ago. The amount of trade done with that country has not increased in proportion to the population. That is a question Imperialists must try to solve.
The hon. Member who seconded the Motion referred to the Murray River fruit-growing district, and represented this as an example of prosperity which may be repeated in other parts of the Empire. What are the true facts about this area? There is a river valley with the most fruitful soil, with wonderful sunshine and growing capacity, and yet you find there derelict farms. People are forsaking their farms because no market can be found for their fruit and wines. We are not against a vigorous policy for the development of Empire trade, but we differ from the hon. Gentlemen opposite as to how it should he done. I support the claim made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) that there is an immense market for agricultural produce at home. If we claim credit for having supplied road and rail material to the Gold Coast, why cannot we make work for our own people by building roads and carrying on the same policy which we adopt in distant places, and more freely organise the development of our industrial system at home? It is folly to blind our eyes to the fact that there are much more valuable markets for development than those in the British Empire. Try as we might to build up a connection between the Empire and ourselves, we must not shut our eyes to the fact referred to by the Seconder, that our foreign trade has gone down by 2.9 per cent. in the last three or four years, while our Imperial trade has gone up by 11.1 per cent.
Where has that foreign trade been lost? In the lifetime of this Government we have lost a great volume of trade with Russia. Russia has 150,000,000 white people, decent people in the main, who buy and sell very little from the outside world, and who, if they were induced to buy £1 worth each from this country, would solve the unemployment problem here. Trade to the extent of £150,000,000 with Russia, in the kind of commodities that she can absorb, would find employment for every one of the unemployed workers in this country. We have also
lost trade with China in the lifetime of this Tory Administration, owing to the methods practised by them. If they wish to solve the problem of unemployment and trade in this country, they must not keep their eyes glued altogether to the little red bits on the map. They are very good, and we are proud of them; they are populated by our own people, but patriotism in this matter is not enough. We must trade, in order to live, with the whole world. If we carry on a vigorous policy for the expansion of British trade wherever trade can be found, we shall do more service to the people than by confining ourselves to the narrow limits of the Motion.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I claim the indulgence of the House for my maiden speech. I make no apologies for entering into this discussion, because I believe that the question of the development of our Empire trade is going to play, perhaps, the most important part in the solution of the many difficulties with which we are faced. The hon. Member who has just sat down has taken us to Russia and to China, but the object of the Debate, as I understand it, is to urge upon the Government the importance of stimulating Empire trade. While the hon. Gentleman has discussed the question of trade with Russia, and has criticised the Mover of the Motion for having drawn attention to the fact that there are more people in employment to-day than at any previous period of our history, he was a little beside the point in drawing attention in this stage of the Debate to the fact that there are still over 1,000,000 unemployed with us.
The whole object of this Debate is to try to impress upon the House and upon the Government the importance which the development of Empire trade can play in the reduction of unemployment and in the assistance of migration. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden), the Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer, has stated that the recovery of industry in the last seven years is the most marvellous miracle in the history of the world. Although unemployment is bad, we are apt, in his opinion, to take too gloomy a view of it, and he says that had the tide of emigration maintained its pre-War level there would now he a shortage instead of
a surplus of labour in this country. If that be a correct estimate of the situation, and I believe it is, then I think hon. Members opposite should treat less negligently, less critically and with less contempt the efforts which the Government have been making to stimulate trade within the Empire with a view to developing migration.
When we were discussing the work of the Overseas Settlement Department the other day it was brought home to all of us how mutually dependent Empire trade is upon migration, and vice versa. We cannot be successful with our policy of migration unless we are to develop our markets. We cannot expect the Dominions to take the surplus of our population unless we can assure to them markets for the produce of their labour. I think the importance of Empire trade cannot be over-estimated. If we examine the figures of our export trade we shall find that, whereas in 1913 the Empire took 37 per cent. of cur exports and Europe 34.02 per cent., in 1926 the share of the Empire had risen to 45 per cent. and that of Europe had fallen to 25.5 per cent. The figures for trade with Western Europe, that is, with France, Belgium, Italy, Spain and Portugal, are still more striking when compared with the trade with Australia and New Zealand. In 1913 Western Europe took 12.9 per cent. of our exports, and Australia and New Zealand, with a population of only 7,000,000, took 8.6 per cent. To-day the share of Western Europe has fallen to 9 per cent., whereas that of Australia and New Zealand has risen to 13.2 per cent. If we take the figures of our export trade per head of population we shall find an even more significant state of affairs.
The fact that the Empire is our best customer gives great encouragement to us in our policy of migration. If we can encourage, assist and train the youth of this country to seek a livelihood in the Dominions, they become large potential customers for our manufactured goods. When we are discussing the export trade of this country, we ought also to remember that it is not necessarily the volume of trade which counts, we should also reckon the quality of that trade. The quality of our trade with the Dominions is infinitely more helpful to this country than is the quality of our trade with foreign countries. Whereas
trade with the Dominions is complementary, because we take their raw materials, to a large extent, and export manufactured goods, the trade with foreign countries is largely competitive, as we exchange with them manufactured goods which we can equally well produce in this country. One can quite understand the opposition of the Dominions to indiscriminate immigration unless they are assured of a market for their products, and the Government have done a very valuable work, in spite of the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in providing a market, and a very useful market, for the produce of the Dominions.
Although the preference duties have been very much criticised, the figures which have been given show what a very important effect they have had upon trade between the parts of the Empire. Though the figures at present are not as large as they will be in the future, the quality of those preference duties must be taken into consideration, because in several cases those duties have been applied—wines and dried fruits, for example—to just those industries which are most suitable for the development of schemes of emigration. They are the most suitable industries for close-settlement schemes, and close-settlement is the most effective, the cheapest and the best means of settling untrained people from this country in the Dominions. In close-settlement schemes provision can be made for educational and social activities, and one can settle a large number of people in a comparatively small area. From every point of view, therefore, the preference duties on wines and fruits have been of inestimable value in encouraging intercourse and migration between different parts of the Empire. At the same time the Dominion preferences have been a very great benefit to the manufacturers of this country, having increased trade between us and the Dominions.
There is certainly a tendency for trade to follow the flag, but, at the same time, I believe we should encourage that tendency by more material benefits than sentiment provides. If we examine the work of the Government in the encouragement of trade with the Empire, we find, I think, that they are moving in the right direction, but, in my opinion, they have not gone far enough. They have
granted preferences in the teeth of the opposition of hon. Members opposite, and I think nobody here will dispute the fact that those preferences have been of very great benefit. Through the Empire Marketing Board they have done a great deal, as hon. Members have pointed out, to stimulate research and to encourage the better marketing of the produce of the Empire. But I think all the speeches have tended to show that a great deal more could be done in that direction than is being done at present. The work of the Overseas Settlement Department and these two questions of Empire trade and migration are, to my mind, intimately interwoven, depending one upon the other. They depend upon the old phrase, "Men, money and markets."
The work of the Overseas Settlement Department, which we discussed a few days ago, has not, in my opinion, been carried far enough. I am sure that money spent on marketing and research into the scientific production and distribution of goods, and money spent on encouraging and assisting the youth of this country to seek employment overseas, is money well spent, and I would urge upon the Government the desirability of devoting larger sums to those objects in the future. If we can develop our Empire trade and at the same time encourage migration within the Empire we shall be repaid tenfold for any money which we expend. I am sure the Empire Marketing Board can do a great deal, as it is doing at the present time, to educate people to buy British goods, and can also do a great deal to educate manufacturers in the best methods of selling their goods: because one has heard suggestions that manufacturers are not as forward as they might be, are not taking adequate steps to market our manufactured goods in the Dominions. I believe, in conclusion, that we are proceeding upon the right lines, but I would urge the Government not to treat Empire trade as a side line but to regard it as, perhaps, the most important factor in overcoming the difficulties with which we are faced to-day in reducing unemployment and maintaining and increasing the prosperity of this country.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Whatever views we may hold at variance with those which the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) has just expressed, I am
sure we can all join in expressing our congratulations to him on a very successful maiden speech, on the care he has taken to master his facts and on the fluency with which he has given expression to them. This afternoon speakers on the other side have as a general rule avoided the habit of which we sometimes accused them of regarding the British Empire as a sort of stage property of the Carlton Club, as a sort of election stunt for profiteers, and I am glad to find speakers on the other side, and particularly the hon. Member who moved the Motion, admitting that all parties in this House are equally mindful of the destinies of the British Empire. For example, we owe to the Liberal party the retention of South Africa in the Empire, and, as nobody has mentioned it this afternoon, perhaps I ought to issue a reminder that in the great Dominion of Australia five out of the six Governments are Labour and Socialist Governments.
The hon. Member who spoke last, and some other hon. Members, indicated that the Empire could only be held together by the cement of a preferential tariff. I do not desire to argue that point tonight, except to say that we believe a preferential tariff would have the effect of raising food prices against the people of these islands, and to point out that a preferential tariff takes no cognisance of the labour conditions under which goods are produced, and the effect would be ultimately to disintegrate the British Empire. The policy which has been pursued is one of voluntary preference, and that is the policy of the Empire Marketing Board. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) has already pointed out that the Empire Marketing Board is forbidden to pursue to its logical conclusion the policy for which it was set up, and a policy which its name indicates. That Board is forbidden to market, and it has nothing to do with marketing. In the advertisements inserted by that Board in the British Press it is clearly laid down that they are forbidden to draw contrasts between the labour conditions under which goods are produced within the British Empire, and the conditions under which they are produced in foreign countries. For example, we are not permitted
to say that the dried fruits of Smyrna are produced by labour which costs 4d. per hour as against 1s. 9d. per hour paid in Australia. We are told that the Foreign Office cannot interfere in these matters, and therefore the propaganda which the Empire Marketing Board might otherwise secure is limited in consequence. The chief work of the Empire Marketing Board, under its present administration, forbids State marketing, which ought to be the main function of the Board.
So far one of the main functions of this Board has been research and not publicity. I think all parties in the House agree with the work that the Empire Marketing Board is doing in that direction. We are told that the prickly pear is spreading at the rate of 1,000,000 acres per annum; and that the sheep blow-fly costs Australia £4,000,000 sterling in a bad year. The Council for Scientific and industrial Research marshals an amazing number of facts and figures, and they say in their report:
Dr. Saunders says that marquis wheat has supplanted all other varieties in the spring wheat region of Canada and the United States, and it is estimated that this has led to an increased production worth several millions sterling per annum. William Farrer, Australia's pioneer wheat-breeder, has added millions of bushels to Australia's wheat harvests. In South Africa the scientific work of Sir Arthur Theiler on stock diseases has resulted in the saving of millions of sheep and cattle every year. The discovery of superphosphate by Liebig and Lawes has benefited Australian agriculture by at least £5,000,000 per annum.
In Fiji for five years the copra industry was being ruined by a pest, but as a result of scientific research that pest has been destroyed. The boll weevil which did £40,000,000 damage to the cotton crop in one year has been attacked. The blow-fly in New South Wales which costs £2,000 a year is being dealt with, and the woolly aphis pest in apples has been wiped out. Our cold storage methods which were really primitive when the Empire Marketing Board began its operations are being speeded up.
I wish to draw attention to the hindrances to the development of Empire trade to which hon. Members opposite have in no wise referred. I take, for example, the question of shipping freights, organised and arranged by the
International Shipping Companies under whose management preferences are given, not to British goods, but against British goods. I am going to take the admissions which have been made in this House on this subject by the President of the Board of Trade. If we send naphthalene from this country to South America, the charge would be 85s. per ton, but if naphthalene is sent from the same port in South America to Antwerp and Hamburg the charge would be 35s. per ton.
I will now take as an example cotton piece goods which is one of our primary industries upon which hundreds of thousands of our workpeople depend for a livelihood, and which is the great industry of Lancashire. We find that cotton piece goods sent from Liverpool to Constantinople cost 75s. per ton under the Shipping Conference arrangements. If the same goods are sent from Antwerp to Constantinople the cost is only 17s. 6d. per ton. This is actually a deterrent to British trade, and a stimulus to Continental manufacturers, and is distinctly favourable to German, Belgian, and French production. This does a great deal to increase the distress which exists in the Lancashire cotton trade. The cost of sending cotton piece goods from Liverpool to Brazil is 115s. per ton under the British flag, while the cost from Continental ports to Brazil under the British flag is 90s. per ton.
I wish to draw the attention of hon. Members representing Lancashire to these facts. In 1913, the freights from Liverpool to Bombay were 18s. 6d. per ton, and they have now gone up to 50s. per ton. Besides this, one half of our total exports of cotton piece goods to India has gone. In the midst of this terrible depression in the cotton trade, the freight charges from Liverpool to India have risen from 18s. to 50s. per ton. From Antwerp to Alexandria the freights are 15s. per ton, but from Liverpool to Alexandria the same goods are charged at the rate of 55s. per ton. Notwithstanding these facts, the President of the Board of Trade, in answer to a supplementary question put to him on the 22nd November, said:
The rates from England are arranged by the Mediterranean Shipping Conference. The matter is not one on which I am prepared to recommend legislation."—[OFFICIAL
REPORT, 22nd November, 1927; col. 1570, Vol. 210.]
We have had even more extraordinary instances than those. I have just given of preferences being given against British Empire trade at the hands of the Shipping Conference and shipping rings. In 1924, for example, this fact was elicited by the Dominions Shipping Committee: British shipowners were charging 19 cents per 100 lbs. of flour more for taking Canadian flour from New York to this country than they were charging for bringing united States flour from New York to this country. The captains of the various lines engaged carrying this flour were actually compelled to separate the two loads of flour on the one ship, and the Canadian flour was charged 19 cents per 100 lbs. more than the American flour.
The Shipping Committee gave a pledge to stop this differentiation, and they gave an assurance that they would in future quote the same rates from the United States ports for Canadian flour as for American flour. We were not able to get any assurances that this arrangement, which did harm to British trade, would be permanently stopped. We have been told by the President of the Board of Trade that the worst of these discriminations are not now taking place, but the right hon. Gentleman admits that some of them do take place, and he declares that it is not his business to interfere, because it is the business of the Imperial Shipping Company. The Board of Trade are not doing anything at all to break down this preference against British industries, and the President has declared that he will not interfere.
I want to say a few words about the beam system. That system of wireless has been in existence for some nine months, and it has secured somewhere about 65 per cent. of the business that was previously conducted by the Eastern Telegraph Company. The price by beam was 3d. per word deferred rate, and 4d. per word full rate. The cable companies are still charging 6d. per ordinary word rate, no deferred rate, and 2s. full rate. Instead of encouraging cheap wireless telegraphy between this country and the Dominions overseas, a secret conference is now taking place, presided over by the Secretary of State for Scotland,
at which all the private interests concerned in this question are being consulted as to how far the privileged position which the cable companies at present hold shall be maintained.
There is one other serious handicap to the development of British trade in the Colonies, and it has been referred to by more than one speaker to-night, and that is the question of the middleman's ramp. Mr. Bruce, the present Prime Minister of Australia, is not a Socialist, but he puts upon record at the last imperial Conference the fact that one of the chief deterrents to Empire trade was this parasitical middleman's growth between the producer and the consumer. Here are his exact words. He says:
Practically every great country in the world to-day has taken some step towards organisation on a basis of co-operative marketing, and it is very possible that, on this whole question, we might have to take an Imperial point of view. … Co-operative marketing is a factor which we shall have increasingly to consider in the future. … I am certain that, in the end, it will be enormously to the benefit of the consumer if we can get all marketing done on a basis where the producers are not subject to the machinations of the speculator. … Take the case of meat. A man will breed cattle, carry them for five years, perhaps, transport them several hundreds of miles to a meat works, bear all the cost of treatment at the works, bear the freight, bring the meat to Britain, with the insurance and other incidental charges, and probably get, for his whole share, about one-half to one-third of what is received by those who handle the meat after it has actually reached the hands of the distributor in this country.
It is the same with regard to apples. Where the grower gets 1d., the consumer here in London pays as much as 9d. and 10d.; and there is the historic case of the Tasmanian apple crop two years ago. The apples arrived at Tilbury Docks, they were marketed here, and, instead of the growers getting anything at all for their apples, they actually had to pay between £25,000 and £30,000 out of pocket towards the cost of marketing and transport.
Let me give the right hon. Gentleman one further case. I will take the case of another big industry in this country, an industry which I myself partly represent in this House, namely, the jute industry. Jute is grown entirely in the British Empire; it is grown in India,
in the Presidency of Bengal. The price of raw jute in the British market fluctuated in one year, as a result of speculation as a result of market cliques buying and selling, bulling and bearing, between £29 and £61 per ton. If it would interest the right hon. Gentleman, I could give him figures showing the extraordinary fluctuations in price which have occurred during recent years, but he need only take these figures of £29 and £61 per ton. The grower gets nothing out of that increase; it makes contracts ahead very difficult for the manufacturers here; and the remedy is so simple. This crop is under British Empire control, and, if the British Government and the Government of India desired to do it, if they had the will—

Sir H. CROFT: The hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him, but I think it is quite wrong to say that it is under the control of this Government. It would be necessary to bring in, not only the Indian Government, but all the Dominion Governments.

Mr. SKELTON: Could there not be an Export Marketing Board for Australian apples?

Mr. JOHNSTON: That gets down to the root of the whole Socialist case. New Zealand and Australia are organising their exports under Government now; they are grading their butter, and it can only be exported under licence—it is really under Government control now. What I am asking here is that His Majesty's Government should approach the Government of India, and, if necessary, discuss the matter with the Viceroy. My figures are indisputable; all that is needed is to chase off the speculator, to chase off the middleman, to chase off the stock exchange operators, who contribute nothing whatever, who are absolutely useless. The two Governments together could guarantee the price to the poor ryot, giving him a decent living, giving him a better purchasing power, and, at the same time, affording a stabilised market for the raw material in this country and giving the British industry a chance free from speculators. It is the same with a good many other Industries. Sir Joseph Cook, who was the Australian representative in this country until a year or so ago, has made a public declaration that Australian meat
arrives here at Tilbury Docks at 4⅞d. per pound, and the poor consumer in London has to pay 1s. for it.
To take another case, there is a very remarkable article in to-day's "Manchester Guardian," entitled "Cotton Growing in the Sudan." In the Sudan, as a result, I think, partly—I put it no higher than that—of the activities of some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House some years ago, the native in the Sudan is apparently getting a decent chance. He is getting something for his crop, with the result that, as is declared in this special article in the "Manchester Guardian," a single tenant, a single Sudanese worker producing cotton, is getting wages as high as £400 per annum. They would not give that in Scotland; they would not give that to the colliers; but here you have people in Sudan who, 50 years ago, almost within my lifetime, were slaves, bought and sold by Egyptian raiders until Kitchener's time, and these people are now earning £8 a week, or £400 a year; and what, if you please, is the chief difficulty of the Sudanese Government in regard to them? The chief difficulty of the Sudanese Government is to protect these people from being robbed by the same stock exchange sharks and others who are floating down from Cairo.
That is the present system. We here are endeavouring to get a living wage for the producer in every part of the Empire. If it can be done in the Sudan, if it can be done in West Africa, as it has been done on the Gold Coast and in Nigeria, why cannot it be done in Kenya? Why will not the Government face up to the situation in Kenya? Why will they not apply the principles that Sir Hugh Clifford and others have applied in West Africa? Why not apply those principles in Kenya and in other parts of the Empire? Talking about the Sudan, I will give the right hon. Gentleman a further instance. Seventy per cent. of the world's gum arabic comes from the Sudan, and this commodity, too, is subject to the same extraordinary fluctuations—as much as 100 per cent.—due to speculators, due to market manipulators, and resulting in robbery of both consumer and producer. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman adopt the proposals put forward by the Economic
Director of the Sudan? Why does not he assist in making gum arabic a State monopoly? Why not abolish all these middlemen and grafters who are floating about like parasites among the outposts of the Empire? Why does he not—and he would get every assistance from this side of the House—convert his Empire Marketing Board to becoming the sole importer of materials like jute, arranging with the Dominion Governments overseas, giving a guaranteed market, and abolishing all these speculators and middlemen? If he did that, he would undoubtedly cheapen prices to the consumer in this country, and he would give to the producer in other parts of the Empire a fair reward.
The British Empire is becoming more and more an association, a voluntary federation. It is associated, not by compulsion, but by desire. Let it develop on those lines. Let it develop so that, as a result of their appreciation of the benefits of federation, all these peoples will want to stay in the British Empire. Let it be a federation of peoples who find an economic and social benefit from remaining in the British Empire—not an Empire of exploitation at all. We have to-day one common tribunal for the ultimate settlement of disputes, a tribunal which all parts of the Empire recognise. Why not develop that? It would be the greatest instrument for peace that the world has even known—a voluntary federation of millions of people of all colours, of all stages in social development, bound together by a social advantage, by a mutual desire to secure peace and to ensure prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman, who, I knows, desires the prosperity and success of the British Empire, could, in his time at the Colonial Office, take a big vision of the possibilities of a great federation for world peace, and of the possibilities of prosperity, of comfort and of happiness that it would bring to all our people. If he would scrap the philosophy of his party, this philosophy of something for nothing, this philosophy of exploitation of the weak, this philosophy of graft, and if he would run the Empire as a great co-operative commonwealth, that chance is offered to him now, and I wish he would have the courage to take it.

7.0 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Amery): I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine (Mr. Barclay-Harvey) is most sincerely to be congratulated on having made use of his fortune in the Ballot to initiate the very interesting Debate that we have had this afternoon. He and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden), who supported him, made most instructive and interesting speeches; and certainly not the least valuable contribution to the Debate was the very lucid, well-arranged and cogent maiden speech of the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell). We have just listened, also to a speech packed with information and full of suggestions, though sometimes, possibly, not without a touch of provocation, from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston). He began by saying that this subject is not a party subject. It seems to me that the general case for the development of Empire trade is one which stands entirely outside our party differences. It may well be that, when we come to detailed methods, some of us may advocate methods, as the hon. Member has done just now, about which those in other parties may have misgivings, but, apart from methods which give rise to controversy, there is a broad middle field of method on which we can all unite.
7.0 p.m.
I know that the hon. Member will not expect me, in the time at my disposal, to follow him closely into the vigorous attack which he has made on middlemen and speculators. I am not sure tha in the world's economy the middleman or speculator has not also got an economic value. He may, at times, acquire a power and influence that may be dangerous, but I know from experience that the attempt to regulate prices by State action leads to very unexpected and difficult consequences. You fix a price and you may get a volume of production that defeats the whole of your schemes. Therefore, while realising that there are anomalies such as he has touched on in connection with shipping rates, and that there is very often an apparently unjustifiable "spread" between the price which the producer gets at one end and the price which the consumer pays at the other, I am, on
the whole, inclined to believe that, before we rush into very bold schemes based on our own a priori political convictions, it is better to throw all the light we can on the actual facts and, therefore, it is wiser to begin by having recourse to such Imperial bodies as the Imperial Economic Committee and the Imperial Shipping Committee and to let them enable us to see where we really stand before we begin speaking of the course of legislation that is required.
Now if I may come to the general subject raised this afternoon, it is this. We are dealing with a situation which is in a state of transformation. Neither this country nor the British Empire to-day are what they were 20 years ago; still less are they what they are going to be 20 years hence. If we take Britain. first of all, as an industrial country side by side with the other industrial countries of Europe, the change in our positions during the last generation has been a very striking one. There has been an immense development of industrial power, both before and during the War, on the Continent of Europe, in the United States, in Japan and in other countries. Partly due to that, partly due to their tariffs and to other reasons, the character of our trade with the Continent of Europe, and to some extent with the United States and countries like Japan, is Continually changing. It is becoming less and less a complementary trade sustaining our industrial fabric, and more and more a purely competitive trade. On the other hand, trade with the British Empire is still essentially a complementary trade and is calculated to remain so for, at any rate, as far distant a period as one can possibly look ahead. I remember very well in a Debate on unemployment six or seven years ago Mr. Asquith, as he then was, whose Free Trade orthodoxy no one could possibly suspect, said he believed that Empire trade was essentially more valuable than the foreign trade, because it. was a complementary trade and he believed that, rightly developed and rightly fostered, it might well in our own time overtop, to use his own phrase. our trade with foreign countries.
I will turn from the changed condition of this country—the greater competition it has to meet in foreign countries and from its foreign competitors
in our own markets—to the situation in the Empire markets. There, too, we are dealing with an entirely changed situation. If I may say a word first about the Dominions; I have just visited them again, in most cases after an absence of a great many years, and I was struck everywhere by the immense progress which the Dominions have made in the last 20 years as producers, and, for the moment, I am talking only of primary products. They stand on an entirely different plane from what they did 20 or 30 years ago. Owing to some of the scientific developments, to which hon. Members have referred, and to the improvement of co-operative organisation, the whole scale of their methods of production, whether in wheat or in meat, in dairy products or in fruit, has advanced to an extent that it would be difficult for anyone to realise who had been there 25 years ago and had not been there since. From that point of view, at any rate, any question of Empire co-operation, any question of Imperial preference, which concerns itself with the supply to this country of the products of the Empire, will be discussed under entirely different conditions, and under far more hopeful conditions, whatever method we adopt, whether voluntary preference or tariff preference, than when it was discussed 25 years ago.
But the advance has been not only in primary production. In every Dominion, and, above all, in the older Dominions and in a great Dominion like Canada, there has been a great step forward in industrial production. Canada to-day is one of the great manufacturing countries of the world, and, with her water power and the vast masses of raw material at her disposal, and with the enterprise and inventive ability of her people, there is nothing that can stop her from becoming an industrial country in the fulness of time on a level with ourselves. I do not believe for one moment that that development, or even the legislative measures which are taken in the Dominions to accelerate that development, diminish in any way the strength of the case for Imperial economic co-operation. It is perfectly true that the incidence of a Dominion tariff aimed at protecting this or that industry may hit the corresponding industry in this country. It is also true that, as long as they adhere to the policy which is theirs at the present
time, both of fiscal and of voluntary preference to Empire products, so long what we lose in one direction we gain in another. These countries, if they develop, if their policies are justified—and if they are not justified they will not pursue them indefinitely—will grow, and their external trade will grow with them. It does not matter what their tariff may be on individual items, Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Africa are always destined to do a great import trade, and, as long as they give a preference to our imports over foreign imports, so long we shall benefit by their development, and anything we can do to strengthen that development and to help them in the growth of their population will come back to us in greater trade.
Take the example of the Australian market. I know there are items in the tariff which press severely upon certain British trades. But, take it as a whole, I doubt whether there is any tariff in the Empire, except possibly that of New Zealand, which is more favourable to Great Britain. The other day certain changes were made in that tariff and Mr. Pratten, the Minister of Customs, who introduced those changes, calculated they would hit British trade to the extent of something like £3,000,000 and would thus enable Australian manufacturers to take about £3,000,000 worth of trade away from us. But he also said that the reorganisation of the preferential schedules would enable us to take something between £7,500,000 and £8,000,000 of trade away from our foreign competitors and that, taking those rearrangements as a whole, British trade would benefit to the extent of about £5,000,000. Whatever criticism may be directed by the industries immediately affected to rearrangements which may take place from time to time in Dominion tariffs, we have reached the point to-day at which there could be few disasters greater for British trade than if the Dominions became Free Trade countries, and, while giving no protection to their own industries, gave us no protection against our foreign competitors.
Turning for a moment from the position of the Dominions to that of the Colonies, there—and especially in Africa—you have a situation where trade development is essentially complementary. I do not mean by that to say that our trade with
the Dominions is not essentially complementary because, even in so far as they may protect some of their own manufactures, they are not serious competitors in manufactures with us in our own market and they send us those raw materials and foodstuffs that we most need for the building up of our own industries and the sustenance of our population. However, in the case of the Colonial Empire, and in the case also of the Indian Empire, the whole development is complementary. They produce those tropical raw materials, which we cannot produce in this country, and which to some extent are not produced in the Dominions either, and they take in return our manufactured goods. It is a trade which has been developed very remarkably in recent years. We send them something like £80,000,000 of British goods, almost entirely manufactured.
Next to the Empire of India, the Colonial Empire, taking it as a whole, is our greatest single market. The trade shows remarkable expansion. Take the trade of Nigeria. In 1900 we sent there less than £2,000,000 worth of British exports, in 1910 we sent some £3,000,000 worth of goods and in 1927 over £8,000,000 worth of goods. If you take the Gold Coast, which has been quoted already, you find that in 1924 it had £18,250,000 worth of total trade and in 1927 it was just under £25,000,000—a growth of nearly £7,000,000 on £18,000,000 in three years. I could give another characteristic instance. Take East Africa. In 1922 we sent to the whole of East Africa 194 British bicycles; in 1926 we sent over 10,000. It is an illustration of the way in which progressive Governments have been enlisting the abilities of the native population. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that we do not believe our policy should be, or need be, a policy of exploitation. The policy must differ according to the different characteristics and the local circumstances, but in every case our object in the development of the Colonial Empire must be, in the first place, the development, mental and material, of the peoples concerned, and only as incidentals, but I believe inevitable incidentals, the development of British trade and the increase of opportunities for employment in this country.
There is one other point about the Colonial Empire that is worth touching upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine pointed out very truly that, in so far as the Colonial Empire is an economic field for the development of industry, we do not claim any monopoly of it for Great Britain. It is also an economic field for the development of the industries of the rest of the Empire. That is a development which may become of the very greatest importance in future years. As Canada becomes a great industrial country, she will need more and more the tropical raw materials as well as the tropical foodstuffs which the West Indies and West Africa can produce. Surely, from our point of view, the development of that trade will increase the power of West Africa and other Colonies to accept and purchase British manufactures. So even if the industrial development of the Dominions may to some extent put a check upon the direct trade in manufactured goods from here to the Dominions, it may very well, under a system of general Empire co-operation, be accompanied by a great enhancement of the triangular trade, the Colonies sending tropical produce not only to this market but to the markets of the great Dominions and taking more manufactures from us.
Here, then, is an opportunity of immense development, and the question is what practical means we can take of developing it. To a large extent those means are in the hands of the Governments immediately concerned. In the Colonial Empire we are concerned as administrators. It would take me far too long to enter into any kind of disquisition as to the work that is going on in the Colonial Empire to-day, but I can without fear say there has never been a period in our history when the promotion of the all-round development of our tropical Empire has taken place as rapidly and as effectively as it is taking place to-day. I believe it to be a development that is based on the development of the native himself—development of health, development of education, development even in a rudimentary beginning of political responsibility, and at the same time, with it a development of scientific agriculture which had never been done before, a development in transport, in road-work, in railway work, in harbour work un-
exampled in our history, and that is having its direct effect upon the trade of the country.
Then, again, when we come to other factors, let me take Preference. I am not concerned at this moment with arguing the case for a further extension of that policy in this country, but only to state the facts as they exist in the Empire to-day. We enjoy Preference in the great Dominions, and that Preference is worth far more to us to-day than it would be to have those Dominions as Free Trade countries. We enjoy very valuable trade with them, and it is a trade the full extent of which is hardly realised unless we take into account how small are their populations compared with the populations of foreign countries. You have, for instance, 7,500,000 people in Australia and New Zealand, 12,000 miles away, buying more from you than the whole of Western Europe with 120,000,000 or 130,000,000 people at your very door. You have the fact that one Australian or New Zealander, from the point of view of your export trade alone, is worth more to you than a dozen Frenchman 20 miles across the Channel, a dozen Germans or Americans, or 500 Chinamen or, I think, 300 or 400 Russians. That is only taking the export trade and leaving out of account that when you are dealing with Europe or with America you get in return for your manufactures, not the raw materials and foodstuff that you need for your industry and for the sustenance of your population, but other competitive manufactures, which really ought to be taken off the total of your exports in order to arrive at a true net balance of the value of the trade.
So much for the value of Preferences to us. If they are so valuable, anything we can do to help Dominion and Empire trade is worth doing. Certainly, what we have already done in those Preferences which are within our present fiscal system has been of immense value. Today we import from the Empire over 30 per cent, of our total supply of sugar, as compared with 10 or 11 per cent. before the War. Take dried fruit—raisins. An hon. Member referred to what our Preference has done in building up the ex-service communities on the River Murray in Australia. We took 2½ per cent. of our total consumption from
the Empire before the War. We took 36 per cent. in the year 1925–26, though it dropped slightly in the subsequent year.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: And better raisins.

Mr. AMERY: I wish I could translate to the mind of the House not mere statistics but what I have seen of prosperous settlers, comrades of ours in the War, British settlers, ex-service men, living decent lives under good conditions of labour, with every social amenity, doing their best to make a success of that great irrigation experiment which the Australian Government has launched in the Murray Valley. Take the consumption of wine per head. It has gone up from an average of about 700,000 gallons in pre-War years to 1,750,000 gallons last year. I might add a figure which has just been supplied by the Kitchen Committee. The benefit of Preference and the true understanding of the value of Empire production in wine has made itself felt in this House as well. I am informed that in 1922 the House of Commons drank only 42 whole bottles and 91 half-bottles of Empire wine. In 1924 it drank 121 whole bottles and 146 half-bottles. In 1926 it drank 240 whole bottles and 595 half-bottles, and last year the House of Commons fortified the Empire, and its own constitution, by drinking 407 whole bottles and 968 half-bottles.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does this include that excellent South African Van der Hum?

Mr. AMERY: I am not sure.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I hope I am not appearing too rude, but there are only five minutes left. There were several very important points raised in the Debate, and I gave the right hon. Gentleman specific notice at the Colonial Office that I desired him to give us some information about a question that I considered very important with regard to the Crown Agents of the Colonies. There is also the question of freights and several other specific points about which we have not heard anything at all.

Mr. AMERY: I will do my best in the time available but, after all, this is a general discussion on Empire trade and I am not sure it will be possible to reach
purely administrative Points of Colonial Office administration and the question of Crown Agents.
There is another matter, and certainly not an unimportant one, on which I should like to touch, and that is the question of learning more about the course of Empire trade from the work of the Imperial Economic Committee and acting upon that knowledge in the direction of improved methods of marketing, improved research and publicity, which will give a greater voluntary Preference. It is impossible to say more than a word or two about the work of the Empire Marketing Board. On the publicity side I only want to say that what we are advertising is the idea of Empire trade, and not specific commodities. It rests with individual parts of the Empire, and individual firms, to push their special wares. What we advertise, and advertise very effectively and with great effect on Empire sentiment wherever I have been, is the general conception that it is worth our while to trade within the Empire rather than outside. I quite agree with the hon. Member who said that the most important part of the work of the Empire Marketing Board is the work it does in connection with research. There we have sanctioned expenditure running to £100,000 in dealing with problems of entomology and insect ravages which destroy 10 per cent. of the Empire's products. We are giving over £100,000 to research institutions, like Trinidad, Amani or the Queensland College of Agriculture. We are devoting very nearly £150,000 to the immensely important problem of cold storage. In all these lines of research a great deal of valuable and important work is being done, and there is room in other directions for a, more advanced policy of Empire development.
This issue is not one of Free Trade or Protection. They are neither of them absolute questions. Each has its arguments which are valuable relative to certain cases and certain circumstances. The greater the area, the wider the range of its production, the greater the advantage and the less the disadvantage of Protection. The narrower the area, the more one-sided the development, the greater the case for Free Trade and the greater the disadvantage of Protection. In the development of a great area like
the British Empire, with unlimited resources, neither of these arguments comes in directly. What we are concerned with is a heritage of immense value and immense possibilities, and the practical ways and means of developing it.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House is of opinion that the pursuit of a vigorous policy furthering Imperial trade and developing Imperial resources is desirable in the interests of the industries of this country and of the Empire.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.

Resolution of the House of the 6th day of March relative to the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport) Bill, and the Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and the Message from the Lords of the 8th day of March signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read.

Motion made and Question proposed,
That the Order [5th March] that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport) Bill, and the Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill be committed, be read and discharged, and the said Bills be committed to a Select Committee of Six Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of Six Lords:
That all Petitions in favour of or against the Bills, respectively, presented on or before the 30th day of March, 1928, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard against the Bills by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or witnesses, be heard and Counsel be heard in support of the Bills:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records: 
That Four be the quorum."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move, in line 6, to leave out the word "Six" and to insert instead thereof the word "Five."
Since the original Resolution was passed by this House saying that it was expedient that these Bills should be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons, various representations as to numbers of the Committee have been made to myself and to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, and, after hearing these representations and after conferring with the Lord Chairman in the House of Lords, it appeared to me that the best Committee would be a Committee of ten Members, five, of course, to be chosen from this House and five from the House of Peers. I understand that on full consideration that meets with general acceptance.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 7, leave out the word "Six" and insert instead thereof the word "Five."

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I beg to move, in line 13, to leave out the word "Four" and to insert instead thereof the word "Three."
This is consequential on the reduction in the number of members of the Committee. It is only natural that the quorum should be reduced.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: I want to raise a point of Order. I want to know whether I shall be in order on this Motion, as it is the time that this question concerning the Railway Companies will come before this House, in drawing the attention of the Minister of Transport to certain matters. Since the matter came before the House, I have been informed that representations have been made by persons in my constituency, including the Northampton Chamber of Commerce, concerning certain matters that had been placed before the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. No substantial satisfaction has been received as a result of those representations, and I want to ask whether I shall be in order in referring to these matters?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, not on this Motion. It is clearly consequential on the previous proceedings of the House. The hon. Member's constituents will have time before the 30th March to lodge a
petition and will be able to be heard upstairs in Committee.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Order [5th March] that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Great Western Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport) Bill, the Metropolitan Railway (Road Transport) Bill, and the Southern Railway (Road Transport) Bill be committed, be read and discharged, and the said Bills be committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, to be joined with a Committee of Five Lords.

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Ordered,
That all Petitions in favour of or against the Bills, respectively, presented on or before the 30th day of March, 1928, be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to he heard against the Bills by themselves, their Counsel, Agents, or witnesses, be heard and Counsel be heard in support of the Bills.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum."—(By Order).—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

LIBERAL LAND POLICY.

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: I beg to move,
That in view of the failure of Liberal land legislation in the past and of the policy adumbrated in the Green Book, this House deprecates any further tampering with national interests to serve party exigencies.
It is extraordinary what a fascination the word "policy" has for a certain type of intellect. We see it again and again in this House. In debate after debate, the charge levelled at the Government is not that they have done nothing. It is not so much even that they have done the wrong thing. It is that they have no policy. In the innumerable debates we have had on the subject of unemployment—

Captain GARRO-JONES: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the terms of this Motion? I should like to ask whether it is in order, in view of the phrase in the last line which imputes motives to a political
party. I have always understood that this is contrary to the rules of Order of the House, and I should like to ask you if this Motion was properly passed by the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER: What we do not allow in the House is reflection on the personal honour of Members. I cannot see my way to rule out reflections on the various parties in the House, and the Government, of course, stand most of the racket.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Have there not been rulings in the past when Motions have been put on the Paper that it was not in order to impugn the honesty of motive of one of the parties? I am well aware that it would be absurd to restrict criticism of parties, but have there not been Rulings to the effect that Motions should not appear on the Paper which impugn the honesty of motive of a party as this does when it says:
This House deprecates any tampering with national interests to serve party exigencies"?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see the implication. The hon. and gallant Member believes that one party is much the best party to govern the country, and therefore he is perfectly honest and perfectly moral in putting forward anything which will bring that party into government.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not out of order if a Motion contains something which is indefinite? For instance, the Motion says:
The policy adumbrated in the Green Book.
Now what is the Green Book? Is it in order to bring before the House an alleged publication of an alleged policy of an alleged party?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate in the House. It is not a matter for the Chair. Happily, the Chair is above party politics.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD rose—

Captain GARRO-JONES: Before the hon. and gallant Gentleman proceeds, I should like to say in one sentence that I protest against this wording, and, if at any time it falls to my lot, I shall put down a similar Motion imputing motives
to the party opposite, and I hope it will be passed by the Chair.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I was saying what an extraordinary fascination the word "policy" has. We have seen it so often in Debate after Debate on the subject of unemployment during the last two or three years. The indictment levelled at the Government has invariably been, not so much that there are still 1,000,000 men out of work, but that the Government have not formulated a definite and comprehensive policy for dealing with the problem. In the Debate we had a fortnight or so ago on the Prayer to the Crown on behalf of the West Ham Guardians, the demand on the part of the intellectuals on the other side of the House was not so much for a reversion to a popularly-elected board of guardians in West Ham as it was for a definitely enunciated and cast-iron policy on the part of the Ministry of Health. In exactly the same way we have this Liberal land policy, which, I believe, the leaders of that party hope will supply a long-felt want. To the ordinary non-intellectual semi-educated person, such as myself, it seems to matter very little whether a result, if obtained and when obtained, is due to a policy or whether it is not. It seems to me to matter little whether the reductions we have had in unemployment during the past two or three years from 2,500,000 to 1,000,000 are the result of a policy or the result of careful administration. It is immaterial to me. Other people hold a different opinion and seem to think that a result which is obtained without a carefully advertised policy is not a result at all but merely an intervention on the part of the higher powers. In the same way, we have this Liberal policy enunciated in the Green Book. It would not have been sufficient to have inquired into the needs of agriculture and co-operated in whatever is being done and what has been done. That would not have been sufficient. A definite, and incidentally carefully advertised, policy is necessary.
If I were the famous Dr. Johnson—unfortunately I have neither the intellect nor the vigour to play the part—I would define in my dictionary the word "policy" as "eyewash" or "window-dressing." Eyewash and window-dressing—and particularly window-dressing—would be particularly applicable to the policy which
the Liberal party intend to apply to the land. In their case, the window must be well-dressed, and well-filled also, so as to hide the emptiness of the shop behind. As a result of certain inquiries into the needs of agriculture, certain definite facts have emerged. The condition of agriculture in this country is not what, we should wish it to be. The acreage of land under arable crops has for the last 50 years shown a steady and a progressive decrease, with the exception of a period during and immediately succeeding the War. In addition to that, whereas for many years—one might almost say from time immemorial—agriculture has been looked upon as the primary basic industry in this country, in that it employed more workers than any other industry, for the last 50 years it has slowly been losing that pride of place—I think I am right in saying that now it has done so—to both the mining and the textile industries. Nobody regrets the condition of agriculture more than Members on this side of the House, but I venture to hazard the opinion that the state of agriculture is not such as to justify the drastic, the root and branch and policy which is advocated in this Green Book and which aims at nothing more or less than the replacing by a horde of Government officials, the old-time rural landlord, who cannot be accused, except in a few isolated instances, of having done other than his duty to his tenants.
I shall not debate at any length the justice of this proposal. I shall not debate its honesty, but I do suggest that it will not be even a paying proposition. It will certainly be found, if put into operation, that the inspectors who will have to be appointed under the Ministry of Agriculture, to say nothing of the councils, the commissions, the committees, the orders, the funds, and what not, will take more out of the land than ever did the old landlords. In many cases, the net income of an estate has shrunk to such a small figure that the inspector of the Ministry of Agriculture would not consider it a living wage for inspecting or supervising the property, still less that it should have to be shared out with the innumerable councils, committees, arbitrators and inspectors which would be set up by an Act of Parliament under the Green Book. What is the fundamental difficulty from which
the land is suffering? It is not the poverty of the soil. The land of this country is as good as any land in the world, and a good deal better than most land. It is not the inability of the farmers to profit from the fertility of the soil.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I wish to lay before the House some of the difficulties from which agriculture is suffering. For 50 years the great difficulty which has confronted agriculture in this country has been the inability of the farmer or the agriculturist to produce at a price which will enable him to compete, not in the markets of the world but in the markets of this country. He is undersold by wheat from Canada, Australia, India and the Argentine. He is undersold by beef from the Argentine, by mutton and lamb from New Zealand and by apples from Canada, Tasmania and France. Even if you could eliminate rent and by some system of confiscation place the land in the possession of those who cultivate it, it would be found that the farmer would still be undersold; leaving entirely out of consideration the fact that such a policy of spoliation would engender such a feeling of insecurity as would inevitably decrease production enormously for years to come. Facts and figures are notoriously difficult to get, but I do not think any hon. Member opposite will seriously maintain that the somewhat drastic alteration of land tenure in Russia during the last 10 or 15 years has either increased or cheapened production.
What is the root cause of the high cost of agricultural production in this country? Weather such as we had last year had a very bad effect on agriculture, but even in the most favourable seasons, the agriculturist in this country cannot rely upon the fine dry autumn for harvesting his crop which the farmer in Canada, the Argentine or Australia looks upon almost as a birthright. [HON. MEMBRRS: "What about Denmark?"] Denmark is a different proposition. They deal largely in milk, eggs and butter, and a wet climate helps them. A wet climate does not help you if you have to harvest wheat, oats or arable produce generally. The weather
has been one of the difficulties from which this country has suffered for many years. In addition, the small fields in this country make the use of agricultural machinery for harvesting difficult. That difficulty might possibly be overcome to some extent by a more extensive use of smaller motor machinery, such as tractors, but we are told that that is not a paying proposition; that the tractors cost too much to keep up, and the depreciation is too heavy.
One of the reasons why I consider the Green Book such a hollow fraud is that, out of nearly 600 pages, less than eight are devoted to instruction, education and research. The reason is obvious. It is a vote-catching document, pure and simple; but votes are not to be caught that way. Surely, if it was a genuine effort to solve agricultural difficulties, more than a paltry eight pages would be devoted to education and research. Without criticising the farmer in any way, does he always know how to make the best use of motor machinery? In these days of almost universal mechanisation, when officers of cavalry regiments do not consider it beneath their dignity to go to Aldershot to learn how to drive tractors, six-wheeled lorries and armoured cars, and when the mechanisation of agriculture promises a palliative for, if not a solution of, agricultural depression; surely any document dealing with the question of agriculture would have more than eight miserable pages dealing with research and education.
One branch of farming which the British farmer does not seem to understand thoroughly is the use and upkeep of motor machinery. How often do we see a tractor standing out in all weathers in the farmyard or in the corner of a field? That is not supposed to hurt it. The tractor is supposed to be weather-proof, but it will be found after a course of that treatment that when it becomes necessary to do some minor adjustments most of the bolts and nuts will be so thoroughly rusted together that the only way to get them apart will be by the use of a chisel and a sledge hammer. That will convert what should he merely a minor adjustment into an extensive and expensive repair job, and reduce the value of the implement by approximately 50 per cent.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should endeavour to keep himself within the terms of his Motion. which deals with the policy proposed from another quarter of the House, and not enter upon an exegesis of his own policy. If he wanted to do that, he should have put it in his notice of Motion.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I do not wish to transgress your Ruling in any way. I was endeavouring to point out the definitions in this Green Book of the Liberal land policy, and endeavouring to show that, if it were a genuine document, we should see much more in it of what really is necessary for agriculture.

Mr. MacLAREN: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that, if the farmers would stop reading the Green Book, they would bring their tractors in out of the rain?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member may proceed, but I must say that he is rather slow in coming to his point.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I suggest that if the farmers read the Green Book, as I have read it, they would certainly bring their tractors in out of the rain. It is because there is no mention in the Green Book of the necessity for doing that, that I regard the book as a hollow fraud, and I have put down my Motion against it. I will not pursue that line of argument further. Everyone will agree that if this were a genuine effort to help agriculture we should hear more in the book about. these very necessary items. We should heat more of the good work done by institutions such as the Midland Agricultural College, and, as we do not, we must regard it, not as a genuine effort to help agriculture, but as a mere bid for votes in agricultural constituencies. In other words, the Liberal party have once more put themselves up to auction in the country, and, so far, they have received remarkably few bids from the farming community.
No comprehensive scheme of agricultural eyewash would be complete without a reference to deer forests. In the Green Book, we have the standardised reference to the teeming tenements of Glasgow crying aloud for redress; but any attempt to redress the conditions of those teeming tenements by placing the inhabitants upon the deer forests would result in the
victims of the experiment wishing themselves back in the teeming tenements, and taking themselves thither at the earliest possible moment. The trouble is that so many of the theorists, who are responsible for that particular chapter in the Green Book, have never seen a deer forest, except in summer. If they had visited the high ground in November to April they would have realised at once the unsuitability of settling anybody except one's worst enemy upon it. From the point of view of what is called in the Green Book prairie farming, which I presume to mean sheep farming, the high ground is unsuitable. Again, the theoretical authority who compiled this portion of the Green Book has evidently visited the high ground in summer.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that the low-lying parts of the land in deer forests is unsuitable for agricultural settlement?

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: I specifically mentioned the high ground.

Mr. MacLAREN: And I specifically mention low land.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): The hon. Member must be allowed to speak in his own way.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: From the point of view of sheep farming the number of sheep entirely depends on the amount of low ground you have on which you can accommodate them during the winter. From the point of view of afforestation, which is also advocated in the Green Book, I doubt whether it is a paying proposition to plant any land which is more than 1,000 feet above sea level. It is no argument to maintain that valuable timber is grown in Norway and Sweden at altitudes of over 2,000 feet. There is some subtle climatic differance there which enables this to be done. The extreme northerly latitude in which wheat will ripen in Scotland is the Moray Firth, whereas wheat can be grown at Trondjheim in Norway, which is nearly 1,000 miles further north. It is not my intention to pursue the argument any further. The whole fabric of this Green Book is so transparent. It is not an attempt in any way to solve agricultural difficulties. It is merely an attempt to buy votes for the Liberal party by embittering the cordial relations which have
hitherto existed between landlord and tenant and between farmer and labourer.
It is not peace; it is a sword. Just as the Liberal party put themselves up for auction in the country at the time of the general strike, and many of them at least again at the time of the Shanghai Defence Force, they are now putting themselves up for auction on their land policy, but, as I have said, they have received remarkably few bids from the community. At least half a dozen times during the past four years the Liberal party have put themselves up for auction, and each time they have had to buy themselves in. The attitude of the electors with regard to this scheme, this land policy, was rather well described by a gamekeeper, a friend of mine, who incidentally is also a trainer of dogs, so that most of his similes savour of the kennel, We were discussing together the so-called Liberal revival, and I asked him if he had seen the Yellow Book on the industrial policy. He said he had. I asked him what he thought of it. He said: "I think it is a mongrel sort of pup, half Tory and half Socialist." I asked him if he had seen the Green Book, and he said: "Yes, that is a sort of pup, too." I asked if he had seen the second Green Book, and he said: "Yes, that is not so bad. It is the best pup of the litter, but it is not good enough to make the public buy the old bitch." That is the opinion of the electorate.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I beg to second the Motion.
The first part of the Motion refers to the tenor of Liberal land legislation in the past, and I should like to trace the origin of Liberal policy in connection with the industry of agriculture and to remind the House how the Liberal party have acted from the year 1906 onwards. What was their line of approach to the industry of agriculture? They equipped themselves with an instrument of husbandry, a spade, and proceeded to dig. After considerable labour they dug out two conclusions. I ought to say that it was not in the soil of this country that they applied the spade; they dug entirely in the depths of their own political imaginations. As a result of their digging they said that the ills of agriculture were two. First, insecurity of tenure by the tenant, and, secondly, the lack of small holdings throughout the country. On these two
main planks the Liberal party took its stand in dealing with agriculture from 1906 up to the time when it ceased to have any influence in such matters. They announced that both these evils were entirely the fault of the wicked Tory landlord. They said that the landlord got rid of his tenants at will; gave notice to them out of mere caprice. He collared all the tenant's goodwill which he left in his farm when he had to quit. In short, that the landlord got rich by robbery. That was the burden of Liberal speakers on every platform up and down the country.
What are the true facts? I wonder whether the Liberal party ever took the trouble to study history? Surely many of them must be old enough to remember the period of acute agricultural depression which fell upon the country in the seventies, eighties and nineties of last century. What happened then between landlord and tenant? Nobody can dispute the fact that rents were reduced by landlords, in many cases absolutely to vanishing point and, further—I know of instances myself—that landlords actually advanced money to finance their tenants through the worst phases of that agricultural depression. Then the wicked Tory Government decided that tithe, which had hitherto been paid by the tenants, should be transferred to the shoulders of the landlords; and the landlords consented. It is well that the Liberal party and the House should be reminded of these facts. What happened in only too many cases after all these efforts had been made to help the tenant through his difficult time? In some cases the land itself was thrown back derelict on to the hands of the landlord. I challenge anyone to contradict these statements. The Liberal party proceeded on the false assumption that the landlord is the tenant's worst enemy, whereas those who are best acquainted with the land know perfectly well that the average landlord is the tenant's best friend, and always has been.
The Liberal party, having made up its mind as to the wickedness of the landlord, set to work to harass him out of existence. They taxed him to death while he was alive, and they put up the Death Duties when he was dead. Through the agricultural holdings policy
of that time they created a, position between landlord and tenant which, while reducing such few amenities as remained to land ownership, did nothing to add any real advantage to land tenancies or agriculture as a whole. And all this for the sake of a, shibboleth—security of tenure. What are the results? Is the Liberal party proud of its policy, which has had such a long innings? I doubt whether it can be. Land has been forced into the market. The landlord's money which had been invested in the soil has now been largely withdrawn from the industry just when it most needed it; driven out because the landlord could not afford to keep his money in the land any longer. That is the direct result of Liberal policy for the last 20 years. What is the result of that? The tenants' capital, intended to provide him with the means of carrying on his farm, has had to be stretched in order to cover the two operations of ownership and occupation. That, of course, is one of the evils from which we are suffering at the present moment, and we have every reason to congratulate ourselves that it is to be adequately tackled in a businesslike way by the present Government.
Then I come to small holdings. The Liberal party said that the second evil from which agriculture was suffering was the lack of small holdings: that there was a great land hunger throughout the length and breadth of the land, and that. this land hunger was going unsatisfied because of the greed, rapacity and selfishness of the landlord. They said that land was difficult to obtain, and that when it could be obtained that rents were too high; the equipment insufficient and, above all, that there was insecurity of tenure. The only beneficent kind of landlord, they said, was the State, whether acting directly or through local public authorities; and so they passed the Small Holdings Act of 1908. I should say that the work under that Act has been extremely well done in the main by the small holdings committees of the county councils throughout the country.

Mr. FENBY: It was a good Act.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: It was well administered and I am glad to have this opportunity of testifying to it because I have had the privilege of serving on the small holdings committee of
my own county council ever since the Act was passed.

Mr. FENBY: It was a good Act; why not say so.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: It was worked by men of knowledge and experience. I am coming to the question as to how far it was a good Act or not, but for the moment I want to say that it was well administered; that with knowledge and experience it was worked with success. No experiment was ever given a better start. The curious thing is that it was worked in many instances by a majority of Tories. Certain things emerged. When the small holdings committees got to work in the various counties they searched for this land hunger They are searching still. There never was this great land hunger as described by the Liberal party at that time. The fact was that the land hunger had not existed as a genuine demand; it was merely engineered by the Liberal party for political purposes. The county councils found, as soon as they got to work, that land was not difficult to obtain; no insuperable difficulties were met with by the county councils in obtaining all the land that they required. It is true that they had compulsory powers behind them, to be used if necessary, but it is extraordinary to note in how few instances the small holdings committees of the county councils have had to put the compulsory powers into operation. That all shows that the land was there, and that, had a land hunger existed, there would have been no difficulty in settling a larger population on the land.
Let me say a word about rents under this Smallholdings Act. I wonder whether anyone will attempt to contradict me when I say this: I believe it to be true to-day that, taking the country as a whole, where smallholdings are let to tenants by county councils the level of rents for those holdings is higher than the level of rents for holdings of comparable size and quality when they are let under private ownership. I wonder whether the Liberal party will accept that statement? If the Liberal party started from the basis that the creation of smallholdings was one of the ways to bring back prosperity to the industry of agriculture, I ask them this question: However successful the smallholdings movement may have been within its limits,
what has it really contributed to the strength of the agricultural industry as a whole? I should be very glad to know. I have applied myself ardently to my work in connection with smallholdings. When the Liberal party started their campaign 20 years ago they said that land hunger existed and that agriculture could never flourish until more people went on to the land. After nearly a quarter of a century of the operation of the Act, I cannot see what good that particular Act has been to the industry as a whole, although it has satisfied the need of a certain number of people. At all events it is certain that it was not because of insecurity of tenure, nor because of high rents that smallholdings were not greater in number than they were before the passing of the Act.
The real reason and the broadest reason why agriculture, whether on farms of large size or smallholdings, is having such a desperate struggle for existence, is nothing less than the fact that the consumer the world over is eating his bread at the price of the sweat of the brow of the producer. That really is the main reason. We can easily account for this in two broad ways. The first relates to money values. Almost all civilised nations and some comparatively uncivilised nations are to-day struggling to get their currency back to the pre-War standard of value, with the inevitable result that the prices of commodities have fallen. That probably is one of the reasons why we are suffering so much to-day from low prices. The second reason is the disparity in the prices paid for labour in this country and in many countries that compete with us in our home market. I am not very hopeful that we can correct either of those two main ills which are the cause of so much of our agricultural trouble to-day, but I suggest to the House that, in connection with the latter evil—the disparity of labour conditions in other countries compared with this country—through the International Labour Office there might emerge eventually some sort of convention whereby the standard of life of workers in agriculture shall be raised the world over.
But I do not think that at this moment the Liberal party cares for any of these wider issues. It harps on the same old string under a new name. This time it is not so much insecurity of tenure as a
new phrase, cultivating tenure. Who was it that first thought of that in his sleep. I am convinced that when he awoke he had no notion whatever as to what he meant. I have gathered, after considerable reading of the various Green Books of the Liberal party, that it means something of this sort—that if a tenant should die, whether from heartbreak or from suicide because of his troubles, his widow and possibly his son should be able to carry on the farm. As far as I can understand it, that is the germ contained in the expression "cultivating tenure." I can see nothing in the two words which gives me the least right to suppose that that is so, and I should not have hazarded a guess but for a very careful perusal of the Green Books. But what a policy at this time of day! With this great industry in a position of acute distress, as it is, all that the Liberal party can offer is cultivating tenure, which I do not believe they understand themselves.

Mr. FENBY: What is the policy of the present Government?

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: The policy of His Majesty's Government, as I understand it, is this: That we recognise that the industry is suffering and labouring under burdens which it is not able to carry, and the policy of the Government, as I believe, is to do what it can to lighten those burdens. This Liberal obsession for land tenure is shared by the Labour party. I see that the Labour party in their Amendment allude to the evils inherent in the private ownership of land. There is not often a point of contact between the two parties, but it is nice sometimes to find such a point, even though the whole tenor of the Labour Amendment is in condemnation of Liberal policy. While the Liberal party and the Labour party share this obsession in connection with land tenure, what do the farmers say about it? Allow me to quote an expression of opinion from two well-known farmers. Mr. Baxter, a past president of the National Farmers' Union, said this:
According to the Liberal diagnosis of the ills of agriculture, the root of the trouble was to be found in the existing conditions of land tenure. This did not apply to tenants on estates owned by landlords
who maintained the traditions of the English countryside, or to those farmers who were their own landlords. He had not been convinced either of the need or of the demand for drastic reform in this direction.
Another, Mr. Robbins, said:
The Liberal land policy failed to recognise the economic facts of the situation and attempted to square the circle.
Dealing with the Socialist suggestion of a stabilisation of prices, Mr. Robbins said this:
To stabilise them at present would be to stabilise ruin.

Mr. FENBY: What does he say about the Conservative policy?

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I happen to have here a quotation from a reference which he made to Conservative policy. He said:
During the past year the Government have been definitely helpful and the relations between the Minister and the headquarters of the N.F.U. were excellent.
With regard to the policy of the Government on foot-and-mouth disease, he expresses gratitude for the firm stand which the Minister took and says that a man with less courage would have given way before the storm of criticism which that policy raised. The Liberal and Labour parties cannot get this obsession to which I have already referred out of their minds, and, until they do so they will contribute nothing useful to the solution of the problem of the industry. I do not think the policy put forward by the Liberal party "will wash," however strongly it may be pressed upon the country but I should like to conclude on this note. In this matter I, personally, would prefer to be quit of all controversy as between parties. I regard the position of the agricultural industry as of such vital importance to the well-being of the nation that I wish to goodness we could sink all party differences in connection with it, and come together with a real will to pull the industry out of its present predicament.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I am sure the House has been interested in the speeches to which we have just listened. The Minister must have been interested to hear the views of the Mover, who is a town Member with a knowledge of deer forests, and also the views of the Seconder who has some knowledge of agriculture
and represents an agricultural constituency. But I am sure if the hon. and gallant. Member for the Maldon Division of Essex (Lieut.-Colonel Ruggles-Brise) goes to his constituents and suggests the repeal of the Measure for security of tenure which the Liberal party passed during the eight years before the War, he will find that his constituents, whether Liberal or Tory, do not share his view about the place of tenure in the agricultural life of the country. The very presence on the Paper of this Motion is a confession of the bankruptcy of the Tory party and of the absence of any policy of their own which they can submit for discussion in this House. They have such a majority that they are able to get nine-tenths of the chances in the ballot for Motions and when the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Lambert Ward) puts a Motion of this kind on the Paper, he only shows to the House and the country how little pains he has taken to consider the attitude of the Liberal party towards the land question. There has been such a lack of care in the framing of the Motion that the hon. and gallant Member has forgotten that when calling attention to the Liberal land policy, he should have asked for the attendance, not merely of the Minister of Agriculture but of the Minister of Health. The Liberal land policy concerns not only the Maldon Division of Essex but also the Central and North-West Divisions of Hull. It has a great deal to say about the use of land as site, as well as the use of land as soil. I propose to call the attention of the Mover to certain facts relating to his own constituency and to the Liberal policy for dealing with the evils which now exist in Hull due to the lack of a sound land system.
In my judgment this Motion rests on three misconceptions and a great omission. The omission is that to which I have just referred. The hon. Member makes the mistake of linking the word "land" merely with the use of land for agricultural purposes; but land policy means more than the growth of foodstuffs on the land. It means the use of the land by human beings to live and move, to work and play. As regards the misconceptions, the hon. and gallant Member the Mover said nothing about past Liberal policies, but the hon. and
gallant Gentleman who seconded did say that past Liberal policies had failed, and I challenge his statement straight away. It is idle to pretend in this House, or in any agricultural constituency, that there is no desire on the part of thousands of village boys to get a chance to stay in their native villages instead of going into overcrowded towns or emigrating to other parts of the world, either in the Empire or in foreign lands. This is no laughing matter but is one of the grave features of our national life. If the hon. and gallant Member for the Maldon Division of Essex says there is no desire on the part of the village lads of Essex to stay in Essex rather than to go to New Zealand or Canada or Australia it shows he is out of touch with rural life.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: I said there was no land hunger.

Mr. BROWN: It is something to find that we are to some extent together on the point that there is such a desire as I have indicated. I would go further than the hon. and gallant Member, however, and I would say that the land hunger is so strong that in spite of every element working against its satisfaction there are still thousands of names on the books of the county councils and demands for thousands of acres of land. Before the Conservative Government's own Agricultural Tribunal of Investigation, Sir Francis Floud, a principal officer of the Ministry, not merely stated that there were some 14,000 applicants still unsatisfied but said that the number did not by any means express the real demand. If there is the same land hunger now as that which existed before 1906 when only 800 acres were provided—after 10 years of Conservative Government—for the use of the small men, that is due to several causes. One is that while some county councils have done their best to administer the Act, others have done nothing of the kind. I join issue with the hon. and gallant Member the Seconder on his generalisation that the Small Holdings Act has been well administered. One of the principal proposals in the agricultural part of the Liberal land policy is for a representative county agricultural authority composed of those who work in agriculture—owners, farmers and labourers—and that proposal is made because in certain
counties, Essex being one of them, the ordinary labourers have no confidence in the handling of the small holdings Measure by the county councils of their district.
The second misconception on which this Motion is based is this. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Mover seemed to imagine that the Green Book is the Liberal policy with regard to the land. A moment's study would have shown him that this is not the case. I think the Minister of Agriculture himself would be the first to pay a tribute to the Green Book as an analysis of the situation. However much the right hon. Gentleman may differ from certain conclusions there I do not think he, as representing the Ministry of Agriculture in this House—even as a Tory Minister of Agriculture—would fail to pay a tribute to the mass of hard work which is represented in that compilation of facts and analyses. I will go further and say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman—

Major PRICE: Is it not reasonable to put it forward when it was put forward as the Liberal policy and not as an analysis of facts?

Mr. BROWN: The Green Book was put forward as the result of a long inquiry by a Liberal committee, but it was never put forward, in the country as the official policy of the Liberal party. I am very anxious about the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull, because I have noticed lately that he pays a great deal of attention to what Liberals say in the country. He made a very witty speech in the Debate on the Address, and I remember that the wittiest joke in it was borrowed from a Liberal, the Lord Chief Justice, who told the same joke some weeks before in Manchester, as reported in the "Manchester Guardian." I hoped, when I saw that he was going to call attention to the Liberal land policy, that he meant more than an elaborate leg-pull, that he meant a really serious discussion of what, after all, is a great contribution by a great party to a great national need, both in town and country.
His third misconception was this: Having interpreted Liberal land policy merely in terms of the Green Book—and the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker) was asking if there was such a
thing; there is one of them here, and I shall be pleased to present him with a, copy a little later on. It will do them all good to read the Green Book—[Interruption.] I do not need to insult the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon by suggesting that I should give him one, because he said he had read several editions. Where he has found them, I do not know, because there are only two, but I will leave it at that. His other misconception was this, that this policy of the Liberal party, which I am presently going to outline, is one that was conceived to serve party exigencies. I do not take the point of view that the hon. and gallant Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) takes. It may be a good thing to have a policy suited to party exigencies, if you conceive of your party, as I do, as the best instrument for the good government of the country and the betterment of the conditions of the people who live on the land, whether in town or in country. But the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon misconceived the situation. He may make that kind of speech to Conservative Primrose League audiences and at smoking concerts in Maldon, but as he goes up and down he will find that there are people dwelling on the countryside, as there are people dwelling in the great cities, who are taking very seriously certain of the major proposals of the real Liberal land policy, not this caricature in this book.
There is one other thing that I want to point out as to the alleged failure of Liberal legislation with regard to the agricultural side of the community, and that is that during five years of Conservative administration, from 1900 to 1905, it was pointed out by a very strong supporter of the Government of that day, the Conservative party spent only four hours talking about agriculture. That was the late Lord Onslow, but despite the fact that the Liberal party up to the War period in 1914 always had to frame legislation with an eye to what the other Chamber down the corridor would aocept—despite that handicap—the Agricultural Holdings Act was passed. I defy any Conservative Member in this House sitting for an agricultural Division to go down next week to his constituents—I defy the hon. Member who represents Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) to
go down to Barnstaple—and to suggest for one moment, not merely the repeal of the Liberal Agricultural Holdings Act, but tampering with the gains given to the tenant farmer under that Act in any way; and I know that that challenge will not be accepted, because whether or not the hon. and gallant Member for Maldon agrees with the demand on the part of the agricultural community for security of tenure or with all the results that have accrued from that Act, there is no working agriculturist in the country to-day who is a tenant farmer who would vote for any single Tory candidate if he suggested parting with that sheet anchor of their security.
With regard to the suggested failure of our legislation, let me take the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907. From 1892 to 1905 there were 882 acres of land with 244 tenants under Tory small holdings legislation, but from 1907 to 1913, under the Small Holdings Act, described by the hon. and gallant Gentleman as a failure, 182,022 acres for 17,005 tenants were acquired. That is not all that I or my party would hive desired, but I will try in a moment or two to point out where I think one or two of the failures were. Now perhaps I had better remove the misconception of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull by pointing out that there is a Liberal land policy, that that Liberal land policy has a relation to the Green Book policy, but that it has no relation to the policy which he suggests, namely, a policy to serve party exigencies. If it is serving party exigencies, it is serving them because this party alone in this House or in the country has had the pluck and the courage to face the problem and to put all its books on the table for the nation to read, study, and argue about. If that is serving party exigencies, I am very happy to be one of those who are serving them. [Interruption.] Down in my native county of Devon we have a proverb which says: "Nobody goes to the funeral of one who dies often." We have so often heard that we are dead, but I can tell the hon. Member for Clay Cross (Mr. Duncan), I think it is, that the corpse will be home before the mourners, eating, drinking and making merry.
The Liberal land policy falls into two parts, urban and rural, and it is to be
found in a series of resolutions. I shall be pleased to present the hon. and gallant Member with this copy of mine when this Debate is over. These resolutions were adopted by the freely elected representatives of the Liberal party after three days' debate in the Kingsway Hall, London, when some members of the party who agreed with the whole of the Green Book were there, when some who disagreed with some of the proposals of the Green Book were there, and when 2,000 delegates for three days listened to a great debate on the agricultural and the urban problem, and adopted these resolutions. I propose to trouble the House with those resolutions, because they are the Liberal land policy, and nothing else is. The first resolution deals with the need for reform of the countryside, and there the House, despite the sneers of the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull, will be in general agreement, and even the hon. and gallant Member, in his heart, if he knows anything about the countryside at all, knows there is grave need for reform.
It is said that sometimes the outsiders see most of the game, and a celebrated French writer once said about this country that the nineteenth century in England was a struggle between black England and green England. He drew an imaginary line on the map from Bristol in the south-west to Newcastle in the north-east, and said that all below the line was green England and all above the line was black England. That is roughly true, leaving London out. Our industrial development has gone on side by side with, and largely at the expense of, the villages, which are the real England and where the real characteristics of our people are still happily to be found. If hon. Members thought a little less about party differences, they would all agree with this resolution that there is need for reform, whether they agreed with its terms or not. If there be one thing that this Government would be happy to find, it is a policy for reforming the countryside in order to put more men on the land, to grow more food and to stop the drainage and the hæmorrhage of the countryside that has been going on in the last half century or more.
The second resolution deals with the land worker and the farm, and seeks to
interpret the real demands both of the land worker and of the farmer. I do not say it does interpret them, but I know a good deal about the countryside, for it has been my lot since the War to fight four times great agricultural constituencies, and I have lost twice. There are three Members of this House I have had the pleasure of fighting in rural divisions, and they will at least agree that I did take some trouble to find out what landowners, farmers and labourers were thinking. The third resolution deals with the complex problem of wages and rents. The fourth, which is the heart of the policy, deals with the proposal for a new agricultural authority, with seven definite and specific duties. The fifth deals with the problem of tenures, and points out, unlike the Green Book which sets out two systems of tenure, that, after discussion, there was a balance in favour of a greater variety.

Mr. J. BAKER: Read that resolution!

Mr. BROWN: I will read the lot if the Speaker does not call me to order. As this is an attack on the Liberal land policy, I take it that I am at liberty to do so. I only wish I had another hour in which to deal with the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench, as I had the pleasure of doing a short time ago when we had a mutual debate. The sixth resolution deals with the question of the purchase price of land; the seventh with housing; and the last with that important factor of post-War countryside life, the plight of the occupying owner who bought his land either during or just after the War, at a highly inflated price. Anybody who knows anything about the countryside will realise, whatever the Liberal party did, or did not do, in its discussions, it did at least tackle the real problems involved in a solution of this question. With regard to the urban side of question, and the use of land for sites, again there is a resolution on the need for reform. There is one on the rating of land values, and one on the need for town-planning and for joint action by regional authorities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman for North West Hull knows enough of the needs of Hull to realise that, if there be one town in the country which would benefit by the application of regional planning, it is the city
for which he happens to be of the most distinguished Members.
Then there is a resolution which would not affect Hull, but it does affect half the great towns of the country, and that is the resolution dealing with leasehold reform. I am encouraged to refer to this, because the Government lifted two pages from the Brown Book, "Towns and the land," in the Measure of leasehold reform which they gave to shopkeepers. I wish they had taken the whole chapter. Our resolution goes further than the Government went. The fifth resolution deals with arterial roads, a subject which will dominate the discussions of this House with regard to the movements of population, transport and health. Then there is a resolution dealing with the acquisition of land, and another on betterment, the proposal being to help to make public improvements pay for themselves, instead of putting money into private owners' pockets. The last, and a very important, resolution deals with the provision of allotments. These resolutions show that the Liberal party did address its mind to the crucial problems of the town and city dwellers. Turning again to the first resolution, it is generally said that this policy will mean hoards of officials. I beg the House to believe me when I say that, in the whole of the discussions on this question, the members of the Liberal party were at one in their desire to avoid the creation of a single unnecessary official. I will go further, and say that they are well aware of the results of the action, which was necessary in the circumstances, taken by officials having definite powers for ploughing up land during the War.
Our policy seeks not to increase, but rather to decrease, officials. It is often overlooked by those who talk about officials on the land, that, at the present moment, it is estimated that it costs £2,000,000 a year in officials to run the estates of this country, but nothing is said about those officials, because they have been there for hundreds of years, and are taken for granted, and the tenant, who helps to pay the £2,000,000 a year, does not know he makes the contribution. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite in error in trying to show a similarity between the Socialist agricultural policy and the Liberal policy. In point of fact, there is a contrast, and
I propose to state it. Although the Socialist policy is not a 600-page policy, it is a contribution worth consideration; indeed, any contribution to this problem by a body of thoughtful citizens is worthy of consideration in the present state of the agricultural industry and of town dwellers. The contrast between the Liberal policy and the Socialist policy is this: The Socialist policy aims at having as many people as possible direct servants of the State, and as few as possible living independently on the land. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to move his Amendment, will disagree with that statement of the case. He might or might not. I am trying to be fair, and that is how I read it. The Liberal policy aims at having as many as possible working independently on the land and as few as possible the direct servants of the State.
There is another book with a green cover, not called "The Green Book," which is worthy of the attention of all who are thinking deeply about the problem of prices; whether they believe in letting things alone; whether they have a hankering for tariffs, as hon. Members opposite have, though realising that the Minister for Agriculture, in his straightforward and honest way always says bluntly to the farmers that they have nothing to hope for from his Government or any other in the matter of tariffs; whether they favour the stabilisation of prices; or whether they take the view held on these benches that the end can be achieved on a basis of security of tenure accompanied by State credit and by organised and directed co-operation. Whatever view he takes, any Member who wants to get to the heart of the problem will be well advised to get the latest Liberal agricultural report, "The Farmer and his Market." I want to be as modest in my claims for my own party as I can be, and I believe the Minister will agree with that suggestion, and at any rate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton), the late Minister of Agriculture, has done us the honour of bringing it down to the House to discuss it to-night, whether his attitude be congratulatory or critical.
9.0 p.m.
Let me proceed to one or two other points before I come to the resolutions. [Interruption.] There is no trouble about going on. The only trouble is
whether I shall not weary the House and the forbearance of the Chair. On the question of control the Minister of Agriculture is going to find himself in a difficulty. For many weary months he has been consulting with financial and agricultural authorities about credits. While the landlord and the tenant system at its best is probably the best system of land holding, he knows perfectly well the truth of what is predecessor in office, Lord Irwin said, namely, that the system has broken down over a large part of the country and that capital no longer flows. The hon. and gallant Member for Maldon attributed the cause of that to the Liberal party. I think he was quite unfair in doing so. It is true that when the late Sir William Harcourt, from that Box, introduced the Death Duties in, I think, 1892, that the Conservative party opposed them with all the vehemence possible, but directly the late Sir Michael Hicks-Beach filled the same post as Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Tory Government, not merely did he continue those Death Duties but he increased them, so there can be no party complaint on that score. We may have been the original villains, but every Government has accepted that great instrument of finance and extended its application, and that remark applies to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have here a very interesting quotation on the subject of control, dated the 12th March, 1928, from a journal which for many years was known as the "Mark Lane Express," but is now called the "Farmers' Express." It is asking, "Why not subsidies?" and goes on to state the difficulties. I am quite free to confess that in my judgment the subsidy did not break down on wheat, but broke down because some farmers who grow oats were too greedy about oats; but that is past history. This very week-end, l2th March, the "Farmers' Express," discussing a possible subsidy from the present Minister, says this:
A subsidy would naturally entail a certain amount of control, but should not mean official supervision as regards the actual rotation of crops and management of the farm, and, so long as land was cultivated according to the rules of good husbandry, a control of this sort would not, we think, be objected to by the ordinary farmer, as, with very few exceptions, the farmers of Great Britain are the best in the world.
If I were going to put into language what was in our minds when we framed the recommendations at the Liberal conference I could not have chosen more fitting words, and I think my hon. Friends below me will agree with me. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if we are to get a drive on in the countryside, to stop the drain from the countryside, to get more men there, to grow more food, and to market that food better in the interest of the consumer in the town and of the producer who grows it, credit has got to come from State sources. But he is in this dilemma—as long as the present system of landlord and tenant operates, if he gives credit he cannot pick and choose. He may give credit to those who will not use that credit for good cultivation.
I am glad the Prime Minister is here. May I point out to him that where his own policy of the bonus went wrong in 1923 was this—the very same dilemma was in the minds of the farmers. Good cultivators of arable land said "We shall get our 30s., but men who are not good cultivators, who just scratch the soil, will also get 30s., and it is neither fair to us nor to the country." I think the dilemma is there, and that the Minister will be up against it, and has been up against it in the discussions during recent months. The State cannot ask the 45,000,000 of our people for millions of money for credits unless it is assured that it will reap results in better food production and a better system of husbandry, and there we come right up against the problem of control. I will go further and say this, that the difficulty the right hon. Gentleman is in with regard to the owners is the same. It is a question of the good farmer and the indifferent one. As the Green Book points out, the best British farmer is still the best farmer in the world, but there is a very big gap between the best and the second best, as, indeed, there is a very big gap between the best land, which gives such a rich yield of Wheat, and second or third grade land. It is very interesting to recall that this weekend the "Farmers' Gazette," in suggesting a subsidy, was forced to express, in language which I would have chosen myself, the need for control, not by means of the direction of cultivation, but by means of the application to all farms
in the district of a certain standard which is common to the whole district—a very different thing from the wartime control.
I am afraid I have left myself no time, without wearying the patience of the House, to deal with the resolutions, but before I sit down I must say a word on the urban side of the problem. I think I am entitled to do so because of the source from which this attack on the Liberal land policy comes. I want to show that this Liberal land policy has an urban side. Let us look at Hull. I have here the report for 1925 of the Medical Officer of Health for the city of Hull. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull has seen it, but I expect he has. At the end of that book there is a very interesting chart, a sketch plan of the city. It gives the wards. It gives North-West Hull and Central Hull, West and East, and it gives tables showing the birth rate per 1,000 of the population, the death rate per 1,000 of the population, the zymotic death rate per 1,000 of the population, the infantile death rate per 1,000 births and the estimate of population per acre. From that sketch plan alone, the hon. and gallant Member, even if he does not agree with the green book, should be moved to argue a resolution based on the brown book in the city of Hull. I will trouble the House only with the statistics respecting infantile mortality. The rate of infantile mortality in the hon. and gallant Member's own city is in direct ratio to the density of population per acre. It so happens that he himself is the representative of a seat, where, for the most part, the population is not dense. On this matter I do not want to insult the citizens of North-West Hull or the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have no doubt the electors chose between the candidates who come up, and any candidate who gets a majority is entitled to think that the electors who return him are an intelligent body of people. In the Newland Ward, the population per acre is 19.2; and infantile mortality 54 per 1,000 births. In the West Central Division, instead of 19.2 per acre the density of the population is 151.2 per acre.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: Does the hon. Member infer that the Parliamentary representatives are responsible for that?

Mr. BROWN: I was about to make the claim that the relation of infantile mortality had nothing to do with the Members for those Divisions. In West Central Hull, the density of the population is 151.2 per acre.

Lieut.-Colonel WARD: That is not my Division.

Mr. BROWN: No wonder the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) takes a different view of the land problem from that which is held by the hon. and gallant Member opposite. I am pointing out that these facts are not born of party bias, but they arise from deep-rooted causes under the land laws of this country. In West Central Hull, 151.2 persons live on an acre of land, and the infant death-rate per 1,000 births is 117. That is to say that the babies born in the Newland Ward have twice as good a chance to thrive and grow to manhood as those who live in the Central Division of Hull.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have been reading the Motion before the House, and it is certainly couched in very wide terms; but I very much doubt whether it includes the subject which the hon. Member is now raising.

Mr. BROWN: This Motion is one which calls attention to the Liberal Land policy, and we are not responsible if the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite does not understand that there was a Liberal land policy which applied to the whole of the land of the country and which relates to his own constituency. We are discussing the Liberal land policy.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That relates to the Liberal land policy of the past. I do not know whether the hon. Member is suggesting that the conditions to which he is now referring are due to the Liberal land policy of the past.

Mr. BROWN: The notice of the hon. and gallant Member was to call attention to the Liberal land policy, and the Motion says nothing about rural or urban land.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Motion refers to the Liberal land policy of the past, and also to the Green Book. I do not know whether the subject to which the hon. Member is referring is in the Green Book or not.

Mr. BROWN: The terms of the Motion are not confined to the Green Book, but they deal with the past policy. I fully expected the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite to justify his reference to the Liberal policy in connection with past legislation. With all due respect, I contend that you ought not to be put into the difficult position of deciding between a Member who is so incompetent that he cannot frame his Motion in accordance with the principles of the party he represents.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now accusing the Mover of the Motion of making it too wide, but the hon. Member for Leith is now trying to make it even wider than it is.

Captain GARRO-JONES: In view of the fact that this Motion is one to call attention to the policy of the Liberal land legislation of the past, do you rule, Captain FitzRoy, that we are not to discuss urban land as well? In any definition of land, town problems come in for consideration, and I submit that we are entitled to deal with the urban problems as well as rural problems.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was trying to connect the hon. Member's argument with the Liberal land policy of the past, but I cannot do it.

Mr. BROWN: I have no desire to get round your ruling, but let me point out that the Liberal land policy of the past has been directed to several purposes. One object of that policy is to secure for the tillers of the land a better life on the land and a larger production of foodstuffs. We also want to secure a better use of the land. Over and over again, we have had Debates about the Liberal policy in regard to the urban side of this question. The Liberal land policy of the past was responsible for the Housing and Town Planning Act, which was the first Measure passed in relation to that matter, and it was introduced by Mr. John Burns. That Act gave us the powers which we now have for the acquisition of land upon fairer terms than used to be the case when Conservative Governments did not see the necessity for public authorities being able to purchase land for schools, water supply, houses, and small holdings at a fair price.
The Liberal land policy has also dealt with the primary need of land legislation, namely, a fair valuation of the land of the country. The Budget of 1909 was really framed, not so much from the point of view of taxation, as to get a valuation of the land. As a result of the Liberal land legislation of the past, local authorities have saved many millions of pounds, because they have been able to buy land at fairer prices. The people in the towns have not room enough to live or work in comfort, and the Resolutions to which I have referred apply in that way.
Perhaps hon. Members will permit me to read one resolution. I often read the speeches of Conservative Members of Parliament, and I am ready to admit that there are two or three of them who really address their minds to what is contained in their own land policy. This resolution is the one dealing with a county authority, and it says:
It should carry out the work of rural betterment with a due regard to the varying conditions which exist in different parts of the country. There should be in every county a representative agricultural authority, including owners, farmers, smallholders, allotment holders and land workers. The authority should be advised by responsible advisers of high standing, and should be armed with all the powers that may be necessary for the efficient and rapid performance of the following duties, which should be imposed upon it by law.
It should keep under survey all agricultural land in its area. and enforce good cultivation by all possible means.
It should take over all land that is badly managed or badly farmed, and any other land which, in the interests of good cultivation and of the population on the land, should be under its control The owner of any land which it is proposed to take over should have a right of appeal to an impartial tribunal.
It should meet the demands of qualified applicants for small holdings and family farms.
It. should ensure for every land worker who desires it half an acre of land at a fair rent, subject to good cultivation, and allotments should be available wherever there is a demand for them.
It should have power to take over compulsorily all land that is necessary for these purposes, and, unless it satisfies the Minister of Agriculture that such action is unnecessary, should take over any agricultural land which the owner desires to dispose of.
It should take over any land on which any owner is assessed for payment of Death Duties, land to the value of the Death
Duties so assessed being taken in lieu of the payment of Death Duties.
In the case of land offered for sale with the concurrence of the Minister of Agriculture that is not taken over by the county agricultural authority, the sitting tenant should have a prior right over any other purchaser to acquire the holding at a fair valuation made in accordance with the principles set out below.
There are three of these principles, and it goes on:
It should be the duty of the authority to take part in the administration of agricultural credit for the assistance of cultivators so as to provide:

(1) Necessary credit for land workers and others entering upon the tenancy of a holding.
(2) Long-term credit for permanent improvements and for the purchase of their farms by sitting tenants and the repayment of mortgages charged on farms already purchased, and short-term credit for the turnover of crops sown."

The last part of the fourth resolution reads as follows:
It should also be its duty to promote co-operation among cultivators and the more efficient marketing of produce; to promote and conduct agricultural research and education; to encourage the development of village industries; and to foster the amenities of village life.
I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was very daring when he talked about research and education. He said that there were only eight miserable little pages on these subjects in the Green Book. He is quite wrong. It is true that in the section on these problems there are eight pages, but, if he had taken the trouble to go through the very valuable Appendices of that book, he would have found more than one thing about research and education. He would have found there a good deal of knowledge gained at the expense of a great deal of trouble from several countries on the Continent. I wonder that he dared say that, for I have here the Agricultural White Paper of the present Government, and I think there are just two lines in it about education and research, and not eight miserable pages.
I am afraid I have trespassed much too long upon the time of the House. I know that there are other Members who want to speak, and I must content myself with hoping for better luck myself in the Ballot next Session, and for the opportunity of putting down a Motion calling attento what is really the Liberal land policy
and getting an adequate discussion upon it. I should only like, in conclusion, to tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman an old story which I think is pertinent to his own party's policy. A painter had lost his reason, and he was found day after day looking at a canvas which was absolutely blank. Some friends came to him and asked, "What is that picture?" He said, "It is a picture of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea." He was asked, "Where are the Israelites?" and he replied, "They have gone over." Then he was asked, "Where is the Red Sea?" "That," he said, "has been rolled back." "Then," his friends asked, "where are the hosts of Pharaoh?" and he replied, "They have not yet arrived." Our policy, at least, has arrived, and, more than that, it is being discussed eagerly this very night in hundreds of villages up and down the country. Indeed, I venture to say it is being discussed over many a glass of Guinness's stout in many a public-house to-night; and when the Scottish Committee which has been sitting under the chairmanship of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) publishes its Report, we shall then have the Green Book, the Brown Book, the Golden Book, and the Tartan Book, and this party of ours will once more have made good its claim to lead the intellectual life of the nation in really grappling with these basic problems.

Sir JOHN POWER: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who has delivered such a very interesting speech, has told us that he fought three constituencies and was defeated twice. It would appear, therefore, that we can trust the people at least twice out of three times. The hon. Member seemed to take exception to the fact that the Mover of this Amendment represented a town, and, if I may say so, I think that most of the troubles of agriculture are due to the fact that more town Members do not take an interest in this very vital question. I have read the Green Book with much interest, and the first thing that struck me about it was that it is got up in the form in which we find modern artistic fairy tales, that is to say, a certain part of it is printed in one type, and then you have another type following on. The Liberal party's policy in this connection seems to me to have
been formed in entire ignorance of the fundamentals of the situation. The whole trouble with agriculture, in my humble opinion, is that industry has been in direct conflict with agriculture ever since the repeal of the Corn Laws, and agriculture has been the sufferer, having only been allowed to take such crumbs as have fallen from industry's table. Industry has got into the habit of regarding agriculture as an inferior, as a sort of poor relation that could be ignored all along the line, and yet would always produce the necessary food to keep an industrial population going.
I do not think there is the slightest doubt that there is a direct conflict between the interests of agriculture and industry, and, agriculture being disorganised, and being run by, perhaps, a slower-thinking class, has so far suffered. There is no doubt, however, that, if industry is to go on enjoying the benefit that it gets from agriculture in the shape of cheap food, it will have to turn some of its attention to its poorer sister. I do not think it is at all possible for agriculture to go on indefinitely in the starvation conditions which industry has forced upon it. What is the result of this policy? There is no doubt that the land is going out of cultivation rapidly, and is getting into a bad condition for want of necessary manurial elements. The safeguarding of agriculture is rather out of the question, because it has no unemployment. Why has it no unemployment? Because people engaged in agriculture get out of it as fast as they can; they escape from the degrading conditions under which they work, which deny to them all hope of any decent livelihood or provision for their old age, and condemn them to a life of penury and poverty. That is one of the things, to my mind, which agriculture owes to the predominant part that industry takes in the life of the country, and, until industry turns its attention to this vital and basic industry, I do not look for any improvement. At the present time, industry is able to dictate to agriculture the wage that agriculture shall pay. The wage that agriculture pays, miserably inadequate as it is, is not the result of the economic condition of agriculture; it is the result of the economic condition of industry. It is forced upon agriculture by industrial standards, and agriculture
at the present time is paying its labourers a miserable sum of 30s. a week.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: On a point of Order. May I ask if this is relevant to what is in the Green Book?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was going to suggest that the hon. Member should connect it with the Motion before the House.

Sir J. POWER: I should be sorry if I transgressed against your ruling. I am trying to confine myself to the Liberal land policy in the past which has brought about this condition of things and, if I am to continue, it is very difficult for me to avoid making reflections on the position as I find it now as the result of the past policy of the Liberal party. I found nothing in the Green Book to suggest that industry owed a debt to agriculture or to suggest that some of the many millions, which we now spend on our Navy in order to protect our food supplies from abroad, might be diverted to the protection of our food supply at home. It was the omissions in that book that drew my attention rather than what was actually in it. I have listened to a great many Debates on the Liberal policy on agriculture. I sat on these benches for an hour and seventeen minutes and listened to the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) and, when he had finished, I was quite at sea as to what the Liberal policy was. I have listened to-night for nearly an hour to the hon. Member for Leith and I did not gain very much from his oration. I do not think that a loud voice and considerable vehemence have really covered up a threadbare policy. If we are to attack the question, we shall have to make up our minds whether we will let agriculture go, and become a nation that lives on imported food, on canned meat, imported fruits and dried milk, whether we are to become a nation absolutely divorced from our food resources and, in fact, a parasite nation living on the results of the labours of other agricultural people. I found no remedies for these things in the Green Book. I do not intend to go into the urban aspect of the question, but I will say that, until the urban population take a more active interest in agriculture, I do not see how this national question will ever be settled satisfactorily.

Mr. RILEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
in the opinion of this House, the Liberal land policy, like the past and present Conservative land policy, in failing to recognise the evils inherent in the private ownership of land, is not calculated to restore agriculture to its proper position as a basic industry, employing an ever increasing number in the production of food.
I want to deal briefly with past and present agricultural policy and then with the Liberal policy. Fortunately, there is not a very great deal to be said about the Conservative policy because, as far as agriculture is concerned, although a great deal has been said by Conservative leaders and Conservative Governments about what they proposed to do for agriculture, their general policy may be characterised by the words used by a former Cabinet Minister in a Liberal Government some years ago when, referring to the Conservative party, he said that they were not worth throwing cabbages at. I hope I may say without offence that that describes very well the Conservative policy with regard to agriculture. It is not worth throwing cabbages at. As far back as 1892, after much consideration, they brought forward their first Agricultural Small Holdings Bill. It lasted until 1908. As has already been said, that great Conservative Measure, designed to meet one side of the agricultural problem, resulted in 15 years in 800 acres and 242 tenants. That is the contribution of the great Conservative party to the revival of rural England in the space of 15 years! There is not, therefore, much to be said about that policy except its disastrous failure.
Leaving the Conservative party and coming to the Liberal party, I would point to what history has got to say about the genuineness of the Liberal party's attachment to agricultural reform. I remember very well the passing of the Parish Councils Act, 1894. Just as in 1892 the Conservative party, after many years of pushing, had taken a great plunge with a small holdings purchase scheme that never cut any ice at all but was a complete failure and had to be abandoned, so in the same way in 1893 the whole country was alive about the intention of the Liberals with regard to the labourer in the village and his Magna Carta—five acres for every man who
wanted it. Then we got, in 1894, the Parish Councils Act, which everybody supposed at the time was going to give every labourer in the village the right to be a free man living on his own land. When we went to examine the Bill—and I was one of those who had to try to operate it when it became an Act—we found that the great Liberal party, professing its attachment to real democracy, had so arranged the Parish Councils Act that the real power of acquiring land for the labourer of the village was not in his council at all, but depended on the caprice of the farmers who formed the allotment committees of the county councils.

Mr. BLUNDELL: Was the hon. Gentleman a Member of the Liberal party then?

Mr. RILEY: No, never. I was a member of the Labour party as far back as 1890. There is a very interesting historic aspect of what I am now speaking about. Such was the disappointment of so many workmen in villages with the inability to work the 'Parish Councils Act in a real way that next year when the elections came, in 1895, the Liberals went out of office for 10 years until 1905. They came back to power in 1906 and, having learned a little wisdom, we got in 1908 the Small Holdings Act of the Liberal Government of that day. It was a good Act. I give it my meed of praise. It resulted, in something like four or five years, in securing 200,000 acres of land and settling 13,000 smallholders. So far so good. After that, the Liberals forgot their attachment to agriculture and the War came, but recently there has been a revival. They have been in adversity for some years past.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has evolved a great programme. While I think the diagnosis of the Liberal party is perfectly sound and goes to the root of the matter, they have not the courage to apply what they know is the real remedy. The Green Book put it forward, and they have withdrawn the Green Book. The real root of the difficulty is that landlordism has broken down. There is a lack of capital, which the State only can provide, to revive agriculture. They say so in their analysis, and, having said it in their Green Book,
in the official resolution a compromise was made. The rich men of the party, not accepting their leader's first demand for the right of the nation to own the freehold of the nation, had to climb down and make a compromise. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) has tried to explain it. I thought perhaps he overloaded it with too much verbiage, but, reduced to its simplest form, it is that what is wrong fundamentally with agriculture is that the old system of landlord and tenant has broken down, and the landlord can no longer find the capital necessary to keep agriculture in an efficient state to meet the conditions of to-day. The hon. Member for Leith said quotations made with regard to the breakdown of landlordism were not simply the words of the Green Book, but were the words of Lord Irwin which were quoted; but the Green Book says the same thing.
Landlordism no longer does what it exists to do. The land of any country is the basis of national existence. No private person can own any of it in the same way as he may own other forms of property.
Having diagnosed that what is standing in the way of Great Britain getting a move on towards some revival of agriculture is the fact that it is an industry that is being affected by a factor which is no longer able to function, namely, landlordism, to find the capital necessary, they go on to say, "We will try to make a compromise." The remedy is to form some three forms of tenancy. In the first place, they propose to continue what they call landlord tenancy—that is to continue the landlord system —secondly, they will recognise the continuation of occupying ownership; and, thirdly, they will also have cultivating tenancy; but, as to how much cultivating tenancy, how much landlord tenancy, that is left entirely open. All that is said is that the county authority may be given power, if so disposed—a county authority consisting of landowners, farmers, and small labourers—to acquire land to be owned by the State and to be developed in the national interest. I do not think it is questioned in the House—it is common ground in all parties to-day—that agriculture is not going to be revived except by a good deal of State and national enterprise. It is common ground that there is going to be no possible chance of dealing with
the problem that agriculture presents unless the State steps in and finds the substance and the capital which private landlordism is not able to find.
I want to show the Liberal party where their policy leads. We had the other day the Report of the Drainage Commission, only confirming what was stated in the Report on Agriculture of 1925, that no less than one-seventh of the cultivated agricultural land in England and Wales is in danger of losing its productivity; 1,500,000 acres of it are waterlogged. We have this Report, and at the conclusion of it this statement of the Commissioners:
We cannot disguise from ourselves the fact that the permanent deterioration through continuous flooding and water-logging of large areas of land now in use, involves in any country the loss of a valuable national asset. In many continental countries this fact is recognised by the State and a State contribution rendered available by way of augmentation of the fund provided by such local drainage rates as can be imposed without constituting an excessive and inequitable burden on agricultural land … We are, therefore, strongly of the opinion that until the State is prepared to accept due financial obligations with regard to such works as those above indicated, very little progress can be made, even with the scheme which we have adumbrated, towards the realisation of the ideal of an 'efficient system of arterial drainage.'
Here is the Report of a Commission, which said that, unless the State is prepared to accept the responsibility, nothing can he done. The Liberal land policy leaves the land under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Is the Liberal party in its policy going to support what the Commissioners say is necessary—State subventions—[An HON. MEMBER: "But not State ownership!"]—to defray the cost of drainage for private landlords? Is that the Liberal policy?

Mr. E. BROWN: Does not the hon. Gentleman's own policy leave all the land now in the hands of occupying owners still in their hands and refuses to take in the ownership of land having higher values than agricultural land?

Mr. RILEY: It leaves it permissible. It is perfectly right. Therefore, the Labour policy does say that the occupying owners, if they so desire, may be left in possession. It is also agreed that the land surrounding towns which may have
a building value may be left for further consideration. My main point is that, apart from these exceptions, the Labour party's policy is to acquire agricultural land, because it knows that agriculture cannot be developed, that transport, electricity, telephones, light railways and drainage cannot be developed without spending State money.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Has the Drainage Report as much to do with the land as with the drainage of the rivers? It is not land drainage at all.

Mr. RILEY: The Report, it is quite true, deals very largely with arable drainage, but it eventually mentions the fact that the land adjoining is now waterlogged, because the drainage which has hitherto existed has not been kept up and attended to.

Mr. BLUNDELL: That is not stated in the Report.

Mr. RILEY: It would be very interesting to argue in this House the duty of the State to carry out arable drainage for the benefit of landlords. What would be the inevitable result? After all, there are no two opinions that any expenditure of money on improvements will make itself felt sooner or later in the shape of increased rent. Let me call a witness upon this point, and it is a crucial aspect which demonstrates the soundness of the Labour party's policy against the Liberal party's policy. Take the case of Professor Orwin, who was appointed by the late Mr. Bonar Law to be a member of the Agricultural Tribunal which reported in 1924. No doubt, very largely as a result of Professor Orwin's experience in his work on that Committee, spread over three or four years, surveying Europe as well as Great Britain, he came to the conclusion that in this country the only solution was that agriculture needed to have a State responsibility, and that the only way to achieve this was to acquire the land for the State. He said:
There is no answer to the argument that any benefit to the land would accrue sooner or later to the landlord.
That is what Professor Orwin says—not a Member of the Labour party. He goes on to say:
The State always must be precluded from taking direct action to foster rural industry so long as private ownership in land exists with tenant occupation.
Does agriculture require national enterprise? Does it require national capital? Does drainage require to be attended to nationally? If national money is to be used to improve the land, our contention is that you cannot justify the expenditure unless the nation owns the land and reaps the benefit from its expenditure.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Mover, the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward) this evening distinguished sharply between the Liberal party and the Labour party in the chief charge that he makes in his Motion, and charged the Liberal party with being guilty of window-dressing, and that this is their motive for putting forward a policy at all. I feel that we ought to throw out our chests and feel highly flattered by his admission that against us any such charge would fall to the ground. Consequently, in view of this compliment which he pays to us, I feel somewhat ungrateful in having to resist the Motion, but I feel impelled to second my hon. Friend's Amendment to resist it with all my heart. The hon. and gallant Gentleman makes, after all, another charge which is a much more serious charge. He blames the Liberal party because they are too active in reform, and on that ground I differ profoundly from him. In my view, they are not active enough, and I have no fault to find with their policy except that it is, to my mind, a half-hearted policy. I think that almost all members of the Labour party have felt a great deal of sympathy with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) for a general acquisition, in the interests of the public, of agricultural land. We know how hard he fought against an alteration at that conference to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) alluded. He deeply regrets that the policy does not include acquisition. We regret it, too. We say it in the Amendment, and if words mean anything it is our remedy. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull, in making an attack on the Liberal party, ought to have distinguished which Liberal party—is he against the Liberal Tories or the Liberal Radicals?

Mr. E. BROWN: Or the Tory Socialists or the Labour Socialists?

Mr. BUXTON: We know that there is a profound gulf which separates the policy of one from the policy of the other. This Debate would be very much more real if, instead of being a Debate between Conservatives and Liberals, it was a Debate between the Liberal Tory and Liberal Radical. I have some very serious objections to the Liberal policy. I should like to specify why I think it does not go far enough. Time is very short, but I will mention one or two points. In its main essentials its ideal is the occupying owner, or what is called the cultivating tenant who, in effect, is freeholder. It is an absolute illusion to put forward an ideal of this sort in regard to the occupying owner, who is on his trial to a very great extent already in this country and who, unfortunately, has not been able to show that he does better as an occupying owner than he did as a tenant. He is short of capital, certainly shorter than he was before. I would like to adduce in support of my view the opinion, not heard in this House, of the land agents for Crown lands, Messrs. Carter & Jonas, the well-known firm. In a report issued in regard to Crown lands they say:
At the date of our appointment there were two different methods of dealing with repairs. In the Northern Counties, the tenants were under full repairing agreements, no materials being allowed by the Crown, while in the Southern Counties the Crown found materials and the tenants paid for labour. The first method was found to be most unsatisfactory as it is very difficult to compel the tenant farmer to carry out the full repairing lease, the result being that on a change of tenancy the Crown was faced with a heavy expenditure to put the premises into a proper state of repair.
That, in essence, indicates the weak point in a system by which you throw on to your farmers the burden of equipment, and of keeping their buildings and drainage up-to-date. That is precisely what will not meet the urgent need of to-day or lead to better equipment than we have already. The hon. Member for Leith in his arguments for raising the standard of cultivation found some difficulty in showing that it would not mean any kind of compulsion. You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. E. BROWN: I thought I had made myself clear. The charge that I was rebutting
was not that of compulsion, but that it would mean hordes of officials.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. BUXTON: I agree with the hon. Member on that point, but if he insists on a certain standard of cultivation his system is not an efficient one. I would quote again the authority of Professor Orwin, who said in a recent work:
The only person who can apply the necessary pressure is the landlord, and the only basis for the proper direction of farming is the contract of tenancy. If the State were constituted universal landlord, it would be possible to define the conditions, subject to which the land was to be held, so as to maintain the maximum possible amount of cultivation.
Everyone knows that if you try to exercise pressure you are involved in ownership. If you go to the length of insisting that any different form or better cultivation shall be adopted, you are driven by the pure logic of facts to provide an owner, who is in a position to insist on a high standard of cultivation. That was done in the War, and after the War to such an extent that when Lord Lee was Minister of Agriculture he made permanent the system of standardisation in that form. You are driven to ownership because there is no other way to secure your control.
I would like to mention other defects that occur to us in the Liberal scheme. In the form of cultivating tenure it puts the farmer into the position of perpetual leaseholder, whose rent is not to be altered; not to be raised whatever happens. Whatever increase in profitability may occur, his position practically as freeholder is secure. Surely, that ignores two things. It ignores the dislike of the farmer for being made responsible for equipment for the outlay of his money, probably none too great for carrying on the farm, for the buildings and for equipment of the farm. He will not lay out the money. You cannot possibly expect him to put money into the land, the fixed capital of the farm, unless he has absolute security. So long as there is a chance that the hon. Member for Leith and his friends are going to turn him out for refusing to farm properly, you will wait a long time before that man will be inclined to lay out his capital.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: When the State is owner is it not going to turn
them off? Where the State is owner at the present time it is constantly turning off tenants because they do not farm well

Mr. BUXTON: That is why we are of opinion that you must rely upon the State for the equipment of the farm. That is the difference. The State must embark to a larger extent in the expenditure of capital on the farm, and thereby you do secure your equipment and retain your control. Supposing a man has laid out money and remains in occupation, and after his death his son proves to be unfitted for farming. The hon. Member for Leith may wish to put in a better tenant. The case has to go before some tribunal. Public opinion will not support the hon. Member in removing even the son of a man who has laid out his money, who has in the public view won for his descendants a very strong claim to remain on the farm. That is an objection to the system which is called cultivating tenancy.
There is a further objection, and that is that so long as you leave a very large proportion of the land of the country in private ownership, and the permanent tenants of the State are to secure any improvement in values, you cannot expect the public to put its hands into its pocket to lay out money on large schemes of improvement, drainage, new transport plans, marketing improvements, etc. It means that you are going to give away money to people who have done nothing to earn it, all because you have not placed yourself in the position of ownership under which the State, the public, will secure the resulting benefit.
This is not the occasion for going at greater length into details of criticism. I cannot find myself in agreement with my Liberal friends because their policy is neither cold nor hot, and I would commend them to study the utterances of St. Paul, when he reprimanded the Christians who were neither cold nor hot, more than he reprimanded the Christians who were simply cold. It is a policy which fails to realise the evil which is fundamental to this industry. We have sound and good reasons for advocating the policy of national ownership and, therefore, I support the Amendment which indicates what I think is the only real solution of the problem.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Certainly hon. Members who sit on the Back Benches have had an extremely interesting Debate to-night, and I should just like to say a few words not only to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) but also to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and I hope they will take them in the spirit in which they are meant. I should like first of all to make one criticism on both. I speak without prejudice on this matter, but I think that the solution of the land policy of this country does not depend on the question of land tenure. Let me give one reason. In this country you have all kinds of land tenure under the sun. You have the owner who farms his own land, you have the system of occupying ownership of large farms and small farms, and you have the system of small holdings. You have also the tenant farmer system and, in addition, charities and educational authorities, some of them farming their own land and some of them leasing their land. Then, in addition, some of this land is thoroughly well drained and some of it is badly drained. It has been said that drainage has to do with the problem, but if you take the whole of the industry the agriculturists are not doing well, and when you have every kind of land tenure in this country and you find that on the whole they are not doing well, then the reason does not lie with land tenure.
Take the Liberal land policy. I am not quite sure that I have realised what it is yet in its final aspect, because I believe the proposals in the Green Book have been altered by resolutions. At any rate, it has been given up in parts. The Liberal party have failed in their land policy during recent years, but I hope we shall have a new one every five years, as it makes very interesting reading. The hon. Member for Leith did not really address himself to the question as to whether the Liberal policy, that is a change in land tenure, was a good one or not nor did he criticise the present system and for that reason he failed in his arguments this evening. Let me put one question to him, and it goes to the root of a good deal of the trouble in the country. He says that he is not going to have a single unnecessary official. He was very careful to put in the word unnecessary. What does he mean by unnecessary. I have a list
here of officials which it is understood the Liberal party will have to let loose on the country if their policy is adopted.
There will have to be a Central Agricultural Loans Board, with its officials, a County Loans Board in every county, with its officials; a County Agricultural Authority in every county, with its officials; Land Commissioners for each county, with their officials; a Land Court, with its officials; a Central Land Fund, with its officials; county land offices, with its officials; Rural Housing Boards, with its officials; a Commission on Co-operation, with its officials, and a London establishment much larger than the present Ministry of Agriculture. I suggest that this would cost, not £2,000,000, but nearer £4,000,000. We want the matter cleared up on the one point alone. Let me now address myself for the moment to the Amendment of the Labour party. There has been a considerable change to-night from what they said during the last Debate on agriculture. In that Debate there were only two speakers from the Opposition side, and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) intimated that the cost of a change of land tenure would be in the neighbourhood of £700,000,000, which no doubt would be obtained by loan. The other speaker from the Opposition side advocated that the fertility of the land should be increased by the use of sewage, and I suppose we shall have the Labour party at the next election, asking the electors to provide them with £700,000,000; and use more sewage.
There are two things which I think the Government might do for agriculture. The first is, to relieve the land from rates and, secondly, to provide some means of land credit. I hope that we shall have something from the Government this year dealing with these two. points, although they do not go entirely to the root of the trouble. The real root of the trouble in agriculture is the fact that we are being swamped by foreign products, and none of the speakers on the Opposition side, either Liberal or Labour, have addressed themselves to this particular problem.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The hon. and gallant Member may not have heard anything from these benches on that point, but the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, dealt with it some months ago in the country.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am quite aware of that, but I was calling attention to the fact that the Liberal party have not addressed themselves to the question this evening.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Will the hon. and gallant Member tell us what he would propose to deal with this great problem?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am criticising the policy of the Liberal party and I am trying to show that they do not address themselves to the real problem upon which the success of agriculture depends. Between now and the next election I hope that the Government will address themselves to this question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am very glad that that statement has the assent of hon. Members opposite. When Members on the Socialist Benches approach the question of free imports of every kind into this country, they will begin to realise that the welfare of the workers, their rate of wages, and the whole of their social position cannot be indefinitely maintained under our present system. I hope very much to find a great turnover of the party in a non-party spirit on this question. The question of the swamping by imports from the foreigner has so far only been skirted. It is a question of which every party has been afraid. If it turns out, as I believe it will, to be the only solution of the trouble with which we are faced, I hope very much that the Government will have have the pluck to say so.

Mr. ELLIS DAVIES: This is the second occasion in a fortnight when we have had the advantage of a Debate on the question of agriculture. On neither occasion has any Tory speaker advanced a policy. Whether they are leaving that to the Minister of Agriculture I know not. To-night we have had, at any rate, the advantage of hearing from the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) what is the policy of the Labour party. I understood from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, who was once a not very Radical member of my own party, that our policy is too halfhearted to appeal to him. May I remind him of this—that our party put forward a Motion for a minimum wage of 30s, for the farm labourer, and that
the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of his party, defeated the proposal in Committee upstairs. Will the right hon. Gentleman get up in his place and deny that statement?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We believe in £2 a week, and that was what we were after.

Mr. DAVIES: For the moment, I am concerned only with what the right hon. Gentleman did, and all we know is that by a combination of the Front Benches of the Labour party and the party opposite our Motion was defeated in Standing Committee. Then we had an assurance to-night that what the Labour party really mean to do is to nationalise the land. They are to exempt land in the occupation of the owner and the land near the towns. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman deliberately abstained from saying where the line was to be drawn. He merely told us that land near the towns—land which might have a building value—is to be left for further consideration. Then the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley) turned and rent the Liberal party. He suggested that we were going to use public money for drainage purposes so as to improve the value of the land for private owners. Will the hon. Member, when he next addresses the House, tell me is there to be no system of land drainage where there happens to be an owner occupying his own land, or where the land is near a town? Surely he must know that any system of drainage on a large scale will affect both types of land and that the proposal that he makes, to confine a drainage scheme to land owned by the community, is quite impracticable even under his own scheme.

Mr. RILEY: The hon. Member is unintentionally misrepresenting me. My argument was that if you are going to drain the land at the public expense, you should own the land so as to reap the benefit, whereas if the land is privately owned, then, of course, it is the private owner who gets the advantage of the public expenditure.

Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member has admitted that, as far as land in the occupation of the owner is concerned, his party does not intend to deal with it, and, secondly, that they do not intend to deal with these enormous tracts of land immediately outside the towns and
villages. Let me take another point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) about "hordes of officials." Does he suggest that you can nationalise the land without officials? Does he suggest that when the land is owned by the community, it must not be cultivated up to a certain standard, or, that officials will not be necessary to see that a standard is observed by the tenants?

Mr. BUXTON: What I did say was that in regard to the question of hordes of officials, I agreed that it was an absurd and ridiculous charge, and that under public ownership there would be even fewer officials than are employed in agency now.

Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry if I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but I take it from him that he agrees with us as far as the "hordes of officials" are concerned. There is another answer to the argument of the Labour party. Nationalisation has been going on in this country for 30 years—since 1892. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member for Dewsbury who now says, "Hear, hear!" only a few minutes ago was showing that it had been a failure. The county councils in 1892 were given power by a Tory Government to take land and to re-let it to the occupiers or to sell it; they were also authorised to advance four-fifths of the purchase money at 3½ per cent. for a period of years to the tenant who was buying his farm. In the whole period less than 200 people took advantage of this proposal, and that goes to prove that there was no desire on the part of the tenants in this country to become owners. What has happened now under the Smallholdings Act? Enormous tracts of land have been compulsorily taken by the county councils and those county councils hold that land for the nation. That land has been nationalised. Surely, hon. Members above the Gangway and on the other side know that, whatever may be said in favour of the smallholdings movement, it has not been a great success in the last 10 years.
The most serious position with regard to agriculture, and the most significant fact, is not that arable land is going out of cultivation—I question very much whether that is correct—but the fact that
every year there is a reduction in the number of farms of between five and 20 acres. Between 1924 and 1926 there has been a reduction of nearly 3,000, not in the large arable farms but in the small farms. For some reason nearly 3,000 of those farms have disappeared in the last three years, and with them there have disappeared at least 11,000 people who were formerly obtaining their livelihood in the rural districts. I should be glad if the Minister of Agriculture, when he comes to reply, would face that issue. The suggestion was made to-night again with regard to arable land, but may I point out again that 70 per cent. of the agricultural produce of this country is not produced on arable land at all? To be quite correct, 69 per cent. out of the whole of the agricultural produce of this country is taken from pasture land, and the question which we ought to face is this: Why is agriculture at present declining and suffering so seriously, when we are paying every year in this country £200,000,000 to foreign countries for food alone and for dairy produce, which I say ought to be produced in this country? I made a statement the other night that one of the reasons was that there had been an enormous increase in the rents. Some hon. Members opposite challenged my statement. Do they do so to-night?

Brigadier-General BROWN: I do.

Mr. DAVIES: Then let me tell the hon. and gallant Member what happened this morning. I had a letter from Gloucestershire, from a tenant farmer of whom I know nothing beyond his name, and he gave me full particulars, including the name of his landowner—

Brigadier-General BROWN: Let the hon. Member take the whole country, and not individual instances.

Mr. DAVIES: It may be very awkward for the hon. and gallant Member to have to listen to my explanation, but he might at least hear it. I can tell him that the rents have been steadily going up since 1900, and no one who has taken the trouble to look at the statistics can disprove it. I am now giving this instance from an Englishman in the West, who gives his name and the name of his landowner, and who says that his rent was put up by 50 per cent. in 1920. There are plenty of instances all over the
country that I can give. I gave an instance the other day of rents that had been put up by 33 per cent., and immediately after that had happened the whole parish was put up for sale, and the tenants were invited to buy from the landlord in private on a price based on the increased rents. That is one form of insecurity, and another insecurity is this, that there is no compensation in this country for the improvements made by the tenant. The whole of the present system is utterly inadequate, with the result that witness after witness before our Commissions and Committees say quite frankly that they are not prepared to make improvements on their farms until they have some guarantee that they are going to benefit by any improvements which they may make.
There has been no criticism of our proposals. What happens now is that a farmer improves a farm, drains it, increases its value, and immediately the rateable value is put up. It is part of our policy in any event to do this. and that is to put an end to a system which rates improvements, which penalises reform and good cultivation, and which, on the other hand, eases the path for the man who is a bad cultivator. No suggestion has been made so far by the Government to improve the present condition of agriculture. One hon. Member said he hoped the Government would lighten their burdens, but the Government have not only not lightened their burdens, but have added to them by taking for other purposes £25,000,000 which ought to have been used for the roads. They have added to their burdens by increasing the education rate in every progressive county council in England and Wales. I can only end by saying, in the words of the National Farmers' Union, that they have humbugged the farmers.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): There is one sentence in the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down with which I agree. In this Debate, which is supposed to deal with the Liberal land policy, by his own admission, not one single suggestion has been put forward which will help the farmers.

Mr. DAVIES: I said that there was no suggestion made from the right hon. Gentleman's side.

Mr. GUINNESS: The only subject on which we could be in order was the Liberal land policy, and I naturally understood his remarks to refer to that policy. If I misrepresented him, I am sorry. This is the first time we have had an opportunity in the House of Commons of discussing this land policy, which has been so much discussed at political meetings. It has been founded on the Green Book, a collection of very interesting essays, which the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has told us is not the official Liberal policy. We hoped that to-night we should be able to clear away the fog and find out what the Liberals really mean. We expected that hon. Members below the Gangway—

Mr. CRAWFURD: If that be the case, are we to understand that the Tory Motion is condemning a policy without knowing what it is?

Mr. GUINNESS: No. If the hon. Member will look at the Motion, he will find that it condemns past policy which we do know, and it condemns the Green Book, which has been repudiated by the hon. Member for Leith.

Mr. E. BROWN: The right hon. Gentleman unwittingly does me a disservice. What I said was that the policy of the Green Book, as the Green Book, is not the policy of the party, and I expressly said that the resolutions were founded on the Green Book with certain exceptions.

Mr. GUINNESS: The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) says that it is unfair to attack the policy on the ground that I do not know what it is, and the hon. Member for Leith has told us that the policy is not contained in the Green Book. We have not had the advantage of the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) to say what the Liberal land policy really is. We had, of course, expected that the opportunity of this Debate would be welcomed by hon. Members below the Gangway, but what happened? First, there was a very strong effort made by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Captain Garro-Jones) to get it ruled out of order, so that they could escape from it altogether. When he failed in that attempt, he made another gallant effort by trying to get the House counted out.

Captain GARRO-JONES: I really think the right hon. Gentleman is descending to very ineffective methods of controversy. In the first place, I did not seek to get the discussion of the Liberal land policy ruled out of order. I protested against the aspersions on the motives of the Liberal party. In the second place, I made no attempt to get the House counted out, nor did anybody on these benches. That came from the Labour Benches. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw both observations.

Mr. GUINNESS: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member if I suggested that he called for a count. I am informed that it came from an hon. Member on the Labour Benches.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: That is your third apology in five minutes.

Mr. GUINNESS: Anyhow, we have got so far without very much enlightenment as to what the Liberal land policy really means. The hon. Member for Leith widened the Debate from the agricultural ground—

Mr. BROWN: I quoted the terms of the resolutions—the terms of the Liberal land policy.

Mr. GUINNESS: Really, we are not differing. He complained that an hon. Member on the other side had dealt chiefly with the agricultural side, and said he wished to widen the Debate, and to deal with the urban problem in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward). I was rather astonished that the hon. Member had the temerity to claim credit for the Liberal land policy, as we knew it in the past, in its effect on the towns. Has he forgotten the results of the Increment Value Duty, the Reversion Duty and of the Undeveloped Land Duty, which, by the admission of its inventor and author, was so disastrous in its operation that it had to be repealed? Has he forgotten that, by the admission of all parties in the House, I think, certainly the hon. Members of the Liberal party and hon. Members of the Conservative party, there was no stronger cause of our housing difficulties, of the complete standstill of private enterprise in housing, than the effects of the Liberal Land Duties in the
Budget of 1910? Then the hon. Member claimed credit for the present security of tenure, suggesting that it had been brought about by the Liberal Agricultural Holdings Act.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I am sorry to interrupt again, but as the right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to what he calls the Liberal urban land policy prior to the War, may I draw his attention to the Liberal urban land policy of 1913, one part of which his own Government has embodied in the Landlord and Tenant Bill and another part of which was carried into law in the Acquisition of Land Bill?

Mr. GUINNESS: I was going on to deal with the Agricultural Holdings Act—

Mr. CRAWFURD: You were dealing with the urban land policy.

Mr. GUINNESS: I was dealing with the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1920. It was that Act, and not the Act of 1908, which gave the great charter of security to the tenant by insuring for him a minimum of a year's rent as compensation for disturbance. Of course, there are many matters in the Green Book with which all parties in the House agree. We all agree about research, about education and about the necessity for improved marketing methods, which is developed in the third Green Book. All those policies are included in our proposals, which are, I think, the highest common measure of agreement between those who are interested in agricultural problems on all sides of the House. Where we disagree with the Green Book is, first of all, that as a foundation it depreciates the efforts of British agriculturists, painting in high colours the inefficiency and non-success of British farmers and making out that our Continental neighbours farm very much better than British agriculturists. Against that we can set the authority of Lord Ernie, who, in the "Economic Journal" for last. December, said that throughout the crisis the output from our agricultural land has maintained its level as compared with before the War, though it has changed its character. He pointed out that the real wages of the agricultural labourer, although they are low, are actually higher than in any other
European country; that the productivity of land under crops is only lower than in Belgium, but is equal to Holland, Denmark and Germany, and considerably higher than France; and that in regard to animal husbandry we have no equal.
I know that the Green Book was written with a definite purpose. It was the foundation for what we believe to be far-reaching suggestions for suggested improvements. We understood that the great principle of the reform which the Liberals proposed was that they would improve the system of cultivation by control; that the ultimate duty of the proper authority would be to secure the cultivation of all arable land; and it may terminate the tenure of any occupier of cultivable land who has been proved to be unable to farm the land satisfactorily. Since that time, we have found that this is not the intention of the Liberal land policy. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs that there is no intention of interfering with or controlling the farmer, and that the only condition the Liberals propose is the condition which we find on every great estate in the country, that the land must be well cultivated; otherwise, the tenant can be evicted.
There is no difference in the condition contained in the Green Book from what exists at the present time on every large estate. What does all this great agitation mean? What is meant by the great claim that by a method of control the condition of agriculture is going to be transformed, when, as a matter of fact, the method to be adopted is one which exists on every well-managed estate in the country at the present time. We understood, at first, that there was going to be an extension of this good management and that the State was going to take over a large amount of the land. We now find that the Liberal policy is growing fine by degrees and gradually less. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Buxton) classed the Liberal policy with our policy which does not recognise the necessity for public ownership, but is content to leave the land under the present system of occupation. It is very natural that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs finds himself very uneasy on
account of the very violent utterances which he has made on this subject. He has repudiated the former attack which he has made on rural landowners, and he was very angry with me, in the last Debate that we had on this subject, because I was not aware that he had changed his mind. No longer, in the opinion of this apostle of land reform, is it the fact that good wages and the prosperity of the labourer depend upon getting rid of the power of the landlord. Now we are told that it all depends upon the organised marketing of agricultural produce, and the right hon. Gentleman now goes out of his way to praise the agricultural landowner. We should be delighted to forget his past record if he would show us by his actions that his past is really dead, but it is quite evident that his repentance is only one of words. Even if his words are rather different, his methods remain the same, and it is quite clear that he still wishes to rob the agricultural landowner's henroost, even when there are so few eggs left in it.
Of course, the Liberal proposals for taking over agricultural land depend on expropriating the landowners, with no allowance for monopoly value. Seeing that land has been bought and sold for centuries past in this country, and is changing hands at the present day, according to market value, it is absolutely unjust to take it over on any other basis. There is really no need nowadays for the State to take over the land on the ground that it is not being adequately kept up by those who now own it. The current number of the Journal of the Land Agents' Society contains the following statement:
Although there was a time, soon after the War, when landowners found that the heavy taxes and rates made it impossible to find money for their respective farms, we have since settled down to more normal circumstances, and income is now regular; and, as the result, we find that, on the whole, estates are being maintained and improved almost, if not quite, up to the level of pre-War days.
It is extraordinary what expectations hon. Members opposite have formed of land nationalisation. They seem to think that it will necessarily mean a great increase in the efficiency of cultivation and in the productivity of the industry.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman
one question? Is he satisfied with the buildings and equipment of farms in the South of England?

Mr. GUINNESS: There is certainly, in some areas, a good deal to be done, but I do not believe that it would be any better done by the State. I do not for a moment believe that nationalisation would mean the immediate institution of vast schemes of public expenditure. I am quite certain that, in view of the finances of the State, no party which instituted land nationalisation could do otherwise than proceed gradually, and spread over a long period of years the improvements which the hon. and gallant Member suggests are necessary. I believe that, if we did have land nationalisation, the effect would be very much the same as under the present system in regard to carrying out improvements, but I believe that land nationalisation would involve an absolutely disastrous cost to the State. I do not believe that the State would be able to control the land as well as the private owner can. The State is not as well qualified for this very individual problem of land ownership and land cultivation as private enterprise. I believe that any such great change is unnecessary, because where the landowner has to sell it is quite possible to make the transfer to the tenant under a system which will be far less costly to the State, and far more efficient from the point of view of cultivation. We shall shortly introduce a scheme of credit which will enable land to be transferred to the tenant where the land owner has to sell without any heavy call upon State funds and without the great and useless dislocation which a general system of nationalisation would involve.
We believe that the present trouble in agriculture is not due to land tenure at all, but, as has so often been pointed out on this side of the House, that the real question facing the farmer is how to bridge the gap between his receipts and his outgoings. The policy of the Liberal party is useless to the farmer in that respect. That policy was a political venture launched for flat-catching, and it has been gradually exposed in its true character. The proposals have been shown to be not merely useless but positively harmful, because they are
based on a misleading picture of the agricultural position, and a misleading explanation of the difficulties which confront the farmer.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have a very peculiar idea as to the history and purpose of this Debate. In the first five minutes of his speech he made three statements, each one of which he had to abandon, and one of which he had the courtesy to withdraw. He went on to refer to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), although he might have known, or could easily have ascertained, that his absence was due to a cause which he could not very well avoid. Then the right hon. Gentleman went on, after pouring scorn on what he called the essays of the Liberal party, to deliver something in the nature of an essay himself. The first part of it was based on a complete misunderstanding of what is in the Green Book and of the policy of the Liberal party. He accused us of going out of our way deliberately to depreciate the British farmer and agriculture. I challenge him to point to anything in the Green Book or anywhere else which shows an unfair depreciation, such as he suggests, of our farmers or of the industry in this country. What we do point out is that there are some things which require improvement, and some amendments which are urgently called for.
In that respect we differ from the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to think he was meeting the position by saying that all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds among agriculturists at the present time. I should have thought that the meetings which he himself has had with certain branches of the Farmers' Union would have shown him that that is not true, and if he is not convinced of it now, he has only to go about and talk with farmers in any part of the country, and he will soon be put right in that respect. In the end, he condescended to tell us that what was really wrong with agriculture was that the farmers could not bridge the gap. His reading of the situation was that the whole difficulty of the farmers was that they could not bridge the gap between receipts and expenditure. That is a difficulty not only with farmers but
with a great number of industries as well. What he has not, apparently, realised, is that there is some reason for the difficulty of bridging that gap, and it is because he and the Government are not doing anything in order to help the farmer to bridge that gap in a practical manner, that they are being condemned

by the representatives of the agricultural industry throughout the country at the present time.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 105.

Division No. 37.]
AYES.
[10.57 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Frederick George


Albery, Irving James
Gower, Sir Robert
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Greene, W. p. Crawford
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Perring, Sir William George


Atkinson, C.
Gulnness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwlch)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balnlel, Lord
Hamilton, Sir George
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Blundell, F. N.
Hariand, A,
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ralne, Sir Walter


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut-Colonel C. M.
Ramsden, E.


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ropner, Major L.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Heneaga, Lteut.-Col. Arthur P.
Rye, F. G.


Brockiebank, C. E. R.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Broun-Lindsay. Major H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown,Brig.-Gen,H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Burman, J. B.
Hopkinson, Sir A, (Eng. Universities)
Savery, S. S


Campbell, E. T.
Horilck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Skeiton, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt A. U. M.(Hackney,N.)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Klnc'dine,C.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Somervllie, A. A. (Windsor)


Christie, J. A.
Iveagh, Countess of
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Clayton, G. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Conway, Sir W. Martin
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Storry-Deans, R.


Cope. Major William
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Couper, J. B.
Loder, J. de V.
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Long, Major Erlc
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Croft, Brigadler-General Sir H.
Lougher, Lewis
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
MacAndrew, Major Charies Glen
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Macdonald. R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Waddington, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davidson, MaJor-General Sir John H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, MaJ, Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams. Herbert G. (Reading)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds. Central)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Margesson, Capt. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel Georgs


Foster, Sir Harry S.
Meller, R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Merriman, F. B.
Wood, E.(Cnest'r, jtalyb'dge & Hyde)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Miine, J. S. Wardiaw-



Gates, Percy
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gautes, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Pennefather, sir John
Colonel Lambert Ward and Lieu'.




Colonel Ruggles-Brise.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Charleton, H. C.
Greenall, T.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff.. Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')
Crawfurd, H. E.
Griffith, F. Kingsley


Ammon, Charies George
Dalton, Hugh
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bllston)
Dnavies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grundy. T. W.


Baker, Waiter
Davics, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hail, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barnes, A.
Day, Harry
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Barr, J.
Duncan, C.
Hardle, George D.


Batey, Joseph
Dunnico, H.
Harris, Percy A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrlngton)
Hayday. Arthur


Briant, Frank
England, Colonel A.
Hayes, John Henry


Broad, F. A.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)
Hirst, G. H.


Bromfield, William
Fenby, T. D.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bromley, J.
Gardner. J. P.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Gibbins, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Cape, Thomas
Gosling, Harry
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontyprldd)
Rlley, Ben
Tinker, John Joseph


Kelly, W. T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Tomllnson, R. P.


Kennedy, T.
Robinson, W, C. (Yorks.W.R., Elland)
Townend, A. E.


Kirkwood, D.
Rose, Frank H.
Variey, Frank B.


Lansbury, George
Runciman. Rt. Hon. Walter
Vlant, S. P.


Laweon, John James
Saklatvala, shapurjl
Waish, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lee, F.
Sexton, James
Weilock, Wilfred


Lindley F. W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J,


Lowth, T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Whiteley, W.


Lunn, William
Siesser, Sir Henry H.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stamtord, T. W.
Wright, W.


Montague, Frederick
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Murnin, H.
Strauss, E. A.



Naylor, T. E.
Sullivan, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Palln, John Henry
Sutton, J. E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Pallng, w.
Taylor, R. A.
Edwards.


Potts, John S.

Main Question again proposed.

Captain BOURNE rose—

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

GAS REGULATION ACT, 1920.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Gosport District Gas Company, which was presented on the 20th February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by under Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the urban district council of Ilkley which was presented on the 27th February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Company, which was presented on the 27th February and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under Section 10 of the Gas Regulation Act, 1920, on the application of the Southend-on-Sea and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 27th February and published, be approved."—[Mr. Herbert Williams.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

DULWICH COLLEGE (SCHOLARSHIPS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir G. Hennessy.]

Mr. AMMON: I crave the indulgence of the House, in order to raise a matter of great importance and great interest to all who are concerned with education. For the past three months my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) and myself have put questions to the President of the Board of Education with reference to the proposed new scheme for Dulwich College. The effect of that scheme would be to debar large numbers of lads from the London County Council elementary schools from gaining scholarships of entrance to Dulwich' College. Perhaps a hurried sketch of the history of Dulwich College may be helpful to the House. Dulwich College was founded out of a bequest by Edward Alleyn, the Elizabethan actor, in 1619, and is known as the College of God's Gift. The bequest was left originally for six poor sisters and 12 poor scholars, to be found equally from the parishes of St. Botolph's Without, Bishopsgate, St. Saviour's, Southwark, and St. Giles Without in Cripplegate, and Camberwell.
So certain and determined was the original founder that this bequest should be for the benefit of poor persons only, that he stipulated that certain sums of money should be set aside for the clothing and feeding of the lads, and the very first person to benefit by it was a lad so poor that he had no home, no known parents and no name, and consequently he was given the name of the founder, Edward Alleyn. The bequest took the form of a parcel of ground in Dulwich
which by the passage of time, and through a process which has often been explained in this House by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Burslem. (Mr. MacLaren), has increased in value so tremendously that it now yields a very large annual income. In the original bequest it is worth noting that this was the stipulated idea and intention of the founder. He said:
Preference is to be given to orphans or children of people receiving parish alms, and failing a sufficient number of children with either of these qualifications, any other poor children of parents residing within one of the four parishes may be chosen.
These poor children were to be chosen in equal proportions from the four parishes. He also said:
The 12 poor scholars, every one of them for the time being, as he shall attain the age of 18 years, shall then be sent out of the said college and preferred to the Universities, or some trade or occupation as his capacity shall be fit, at the charge of the college, provided there are to be not above or under the number of four of the said poor scholars at one time maintained in the University.
At Dulwich College, as in the case of many other educational institutions in this country, the rich, during the process of time, have robbed the poor of this foundation, and they are now in absolute possession. The foundation was reconstituted in the year 1857, and a college was built with a wing for a lower school, the term "lower" being used in the social sense, but it was never used by such scholars. It was kept wholly for the richer persons; and so it went on until the year 1882 when the Royal Assent was given to a new charter founding Alleyn's School. The school was so inadequately endowed that it had to receive assistance from the funds of public education authorities. Coming to the present period, in 1920 the college, finding itself in difficulties, made an application for assistance from public funds, and the corollary of receiving that assistance was that they had to set aside a certain number of vacancies in the college for poor scholars who should win scholarships in the London County Council elementary schools. That was complied with, and in the year 1925 no less than 107 scholars were in Dulwich College who had come
from the London County Council schools, and in 1927 as many as 170.
It is worth noting that most' of the extra college scholarships and prizes and bursaries have been won by boys from the elementary schools, and that somewhat accounts for the attempt that is being made at present. The proposal now put forward will have the effect of depriving those capable lads of entrance by means of scholarships into Dulwich College, and I want to put it to hon. Members, irrespective of party, that it is a waste of the highest national resources to deprive the country of the services of the very best brains it can get. The lads who have come from the elementary schools have proved to possess the best brains as they have won scholarships in the college itself. The agitation has been very strong and has attracted so much attention that the governors of the college, through the chairman, Sir Arthur Hirtzel, have made some concession by intimating that they are willing to allow scholarships up to 50. We say that this is not sufficient, and that the President of the Board of Education should not give his consent to this scheme which is going to deprive these lads of their scholarships. Fortunately the London County Council support the view we have taken, and at a meeting a week ago passed the following resolution:
That the Board of Education be requested, before agreement to the management scheme for Alleynes College of God's Gift, Educational Foundation, Dulwich, to obtain from the Governors of the Foundation assurances that it is their intention to provide facilities for county council scholars at Dulwich College broadly equivalent to those enjoyed in the years 1926 and 1927.
I again call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the fact that in 1926–27 there were 170 scholarships in Dulwich College from the London County Council's elementary schools; so that, if this Resolution means anything, the education authority for London is asking the Minister to withhold his consent to the scheme unless he gets an assurance that not less than 170 scholarships are available in Dulwich College. That is what we want to ask the right hon. Gentleman. He has the power in his hands either to withhold consent or to agree, and I suggest that, in the interests of London education, and in view of the difficulty that
there is in finding sufficient places for scholarship winners from the London elementary schools, he must not consent to any scheme that will reduce in any way the number of scholarships available to capable boys from our elementary schools. I ask him that he will, in the interests of the Department over which he presides and the responsibility that he has for London education, tell the House that he agrees with the London County Council Education Committee, and that his consent cannot be given until he has an assurance, perfectly definite, that not fewer than the scholarships now tenable in Dulwich College will be available to boys in future.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Lord Eustace Percy): I ought to apologise, perhaps, to the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) and my hon. Friends who represent the Governors if I get up before they have had an opportunity of saying anything. But this is, after all, a request, and indeed an attack on my Department, and I feel that I ought to have the 10 minutes that remain to reply to it. The hon. Member has repeated what he has said in the Press in recent weeks, reviving the ancient and oft-exploded fallacy about the robbery of these foundations. What are the facts? I will dismiss them in a very few words, because I want to go to the real merits of the case. In 1619 a gentleman set apart a certain part, not the whole, of £800 a year for 12 poor scholars. The hon. Member's argument is that the whole of the unearned increment on that sum, 300 years after, should be set apart for London County Council scholarships.

Mr. AMMON: For poor scholars.

Lord E. PERCY: London County Council scholarships—that was the hon. Member's contention. What, are London County Council scholarships? They are scholarships given to boys who have passed a public examination and whose parents have not more than £450 a year if they have one child, and not more than £800 a year if they have eight children, and rateably between those limits. I do not know that it is worth arguing or considering what were the intentions of the founder in 1619 as to the relations between the poor scholar for whom he was providing, as the hon.
Member has remarked, and the parent with £450 to £800 a year.

Mr. AMMON: They are the children of poor working people who get the scholarships.

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member is wrong. If he would deal with facts he would be more worth listening to on this subject. If we are to have interruptions of this kind, let us examine the question. I have stated the income limits, and these are the income limits which the London County Council has laid down as proper for persons who receive their scholarships.

Mr. GARDNER: What date?

Lord E. PERCY: The hon. Member must allow me to finish my sentence. I do not think I should be overstating the case if I said that 20 per cent. of the fee-paying pupils of Dulwich College are children of parents who come within those limits.
So much for the argument about the robbery of the poor for the education of the rich. This small foundation for 12 scholars has grown to-day, excluding entirely Alleynes School and the 267 free places at Alleynes School under this scheme, to not less than 250 scholars of the same economic status as the London County Council scholars. I leave hon. Members to work out the relation between the original part of the £800 left to the 12 poor scholars and the amount of the endowment of Dulwich College to-day which goes to the maintenance of these 250 scholars, who are just as poor as the London County Council scholars for whom the hon. Member is speaking. That is, so far as the ancient gibe about robbery is concerned. Now let us come to the merits of this case. I do not want to ride off on the fact that the position of the Board of Education is not, in this matter, the position of a public Department administering public policy. It is the position of a trustee administering an ancient foundation, and an ancient foundation which Parliament has interpreted by a Parliamentary scheme in 1857.
I am perfectly sure that the hon. Member opposite, if he were in my place acting as trustee, would have no option to-day but to pursue the course which I shall take, which is to grant the application
of the Governors of Dulwich College. But that is my position as trustee, and I do not want to ride off on that. I want to deal with the merits. We are all at one in this, that we want to manage our educational system so that all our educational institutions for higher education shall be open to all pupils capable of benefiting from them and capable of contributing to them, irrespective of their means. That is a common object, and I think I have defined what hon. Members opposite are really aiming at. The question is, how is that to be carried out in practice? I say not only "capable of benefiting from," but "capable of contributing to." You cannot run any system of higher education except on this basis, that every secondary school is an entity in itself, and has its own character. You have to maintain that character. You cannot run schools for higher education merely as so many departments of a system of local administration.

Mr. GARDNER: Why not?

Lord E. PERCY: Why not? That is exactly the thing which makes hon. Members opposite such bugbears in the matter of secondary education.

Mr. GARDNER: Your secondary education.

Lord E. PERCY: If the hon. Member interrupts me he must let me reply to his interruption, and I say that is exactly the sort of question which makes everybody interested in secondary education in this country so much afraid of hon. Members opposite. They have no conception of the character of an institution for higher education. They think it can be run simply as a department of local administration.

Mr. J. HUDSON: That is both an insult and false.

Lord E. PERCY: If hon. Members do not want to be insulted, they ought not to interrupt. Dulwich has always in the past voluntarily, before it was in receipt of a Government grant, admitted scholars from the London County Council, for many years past. In 1920, when it was in financial difficulties, it agreed to a scheme by which it was bound by a particular
percentage. The experience of that arrangement has been a very obvious one. Dulwich school, as a public school, is a school whose age-range runs from 13 to 17 or 18. Under a junior scholarship scheme it has to admit pupils at 11; the consequence is that the lower part of the school is overcrowded, and that is quite clearly not the way to get the proper mixture, to get the maximum admission of pupils to a school like Dulwich. If you want to get the maximum admission of poor scholars to such a school, you have to pursue a very different course. You have to make a voluntary arrangement with that school that they will take in the maximum number of pupils which they can absorb, and their power of absorption greatly depends on the age of entry of those pupils.
That is the position now. Roughly speaking, as I understand it—and I am not committing the Governors—they propose to admit about 15 junior scholars of the London County Council a year. On a six-years course, which is about the course that those scholars will pursue, that will mean a total number of 80 pupils up to sixteen. The idea that the present 153 pupils of Dulwich College are going suddenly to fall to 50 is perfectly absurd. You are going to have a steady admission of at least 15 pupils a year. If you put a school like Dulwich in this position, they will admit at least 15 scholars, and they will admit as many more scholars who come to them as they think can be a credit to the school. You will get a very much larger number of pupils in Dulwich on that basis of voluntary self-government than you will get by any scheme of State regulation. This is the only way in which you are going to get that leavening of the public school system with ex-elementary schoolboys at which we are all aiming, and I implore hon. Members opposite to have a little confidence in the powers of self-government of secondary institutions in this country.

It being Half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.